The operational impact of changing 28% to 24% for CGT on property:
"Operational impact (£million) (HMRC or other) HMRC will need to make changes to its IT systems to implement this change at a cost in the region of £2 million."
£2m!!!
£2million to change one % in the system.
Jeez.
My guess is the entire HMRC IT system is probably subbed out on some horrific PFI deal.
The Tories may have to spend half the GE campaign trying to explain why scrapping NI wont destroy public services and take away the state pension from those who have worked hard all their lives and paid in.
I see Reeves has already started this morning.
It's amazing how a long overdue tax cut for workers is immediately and ludicrously rebadged as an attack on state pensions, which are fully protected and triple locked.
Exactly and to be honest it will be a process over several years as income tax becomes payable at the same rate for workers and pensioners and fairness established in the tax system
I think you are both missing the simple fact that after 50+ years of being told that you need NI to have a state pension, many people will be thinking that phasing out NI means phasing out the state pension, only the Tories aren't admitting it.
In a lot of ways NI doesn't make sense - but its continued existence does act as a political check on any efforts to means test or otherwise limit the state pension, simply because so many people view it as a contributory system. You get rid of NI, you make it much easier to start chipping away at the pension too. You can understand people's worries. Child benefit was meant to be universal too, and look at what happened with that.
The state pension should be means tested. There's no reason for people like my mum and dad to receive it, they have income in retirement in excess of £120k per year from equity investments and private pensions.
As was discussed on here yesterday, the risk with means testing the pension (aside from the social cohesion issue - those who don't get it not wanting to fund other "scroungers") is the behavioural effect. Unless you set the taper very carefully you get a bunch of people stopping saving for retirement because it's better to have a smaller private pension and still get your state one. Same issue as the behavioural effects of the lifetime allowance or the child benefit taper.
The income tax system can take care of the "Rich Pensioner Problem".
It already does, to an extent.
Yes. @MaxPB’s parents will pay way more in income tax than they receive in state pensions, and the cost of means testing everyone to stop the paying the top 1% or even 10% of pensioners will be disproportionate - not to mention those who will for many reasons fall through the cracks of a complex system.
I’m sure Richard Branson and Jim Ratcliffe get paid something of a state pension too, a trivial amount of money dwarfed by other taxes paid by themselves and their companies.
Also means testing simply doesn’t work when you get to elderly people - the number of people who don’t claim what they are entitled to is scary - even locally it’s high and people put effort into ensuring people know what they are entitled to
Not just pensioners - isn't that what led to the falling out between IDS and Osborne over Universal Credit? UC rolled up, I think, 6 previous benefits which had to be applied for separately, so people were now getting benefits they previously had not applied for. To my understanding, this was as IDS intended, but it was costing the Treasury more, so Osborne simply cut the amounts of benefit.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
I'm neither a tenant nor a landlord myself but isn't shifting the burden to landlords ongoing costs (As has been happening) and reducing their capital gains on sale going to reduce overall market friction for the same net ? And as @MattW pointed out this tax is 0% (Rightly in my view) for OO.
Seems that is the logic:
"In their March 2024 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO), the OBR estimate that the cut in capital gains tax payable on residential property gains increases property transactions by approximately 2% in the near term, before tapering away over the remainder of the forecast."
I'm both a landlord and OO - the rates on BTL mortgages rocketed after the Truss debacle and have not come down anywhere near as much as OO mortgages. And most landlords have interest only mortgages which makes the impact even worse. So a small CGT incentive to sell before Labour puts it up again could well result in a significant number of landlords (many of whom are approaching retiring age) pulling out of the market.
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
Well, the obvious thing would be to increase income tax to compensate. So it's easily funded. However, presumably Hunt wouldn't want the inevitable Pensioner Tax headlines it'd generate (despite it being entirely right that non-workers on £x per year should pay at least as much direct tax as a non-worker on £x, IMO).
Liz Truss's big mistake was not the unfunded tax cuts per se. It was that she bypassed the entire economic establishment in order to make unfunded tax cuts. That is what spooked the markets. Whereas when the Gnomes of Zurich examine Hunt's effort, they will see the same holes but figure that if the OBR and BoE and Treasury are happy, it is probably be all right.
It was shocking hubris and imo the point at which the next election became unwinnable for the Cons. Probably not just the next one either. The Cons have trashed the thing most electorally valuable to them - the notion that they are better than Labour at taking care of the economy and the public finances.
This was always a nonsense but perceptions count for more than reality in politics (as Joe Biden is finding to his cost at the moment). Because of Truss the Cons are now seen as less competent on money matters than Labour. Unless Labour have their own Truss moment this will likely remain the case for quite some time. Which means the Cons will likely be out of power for quite some time too.
Funny thing is in stealing a lot of Labour policies, the Tories have neutralised their own criticisms of them - and SKS was being pretty cowardly in putting policies forwasrd anyway. So it has reset the electoral situation in a way that absolves Labour of blame for these policies, while opening up Labour options.
It would be funny if the Cons forced Lab into rediscovering their radical (well, weakly progressive) mojo by stealing their not frightening the tabloid reading horses manifesto. I suspect there would be a lot of searching around for alternative milquetoast policies first though.
Also interesting implications in Scotland. If SKS's policies are so wet that the Tories have gladly adopted them ... and I notice the ScoTories are very upset as well especially in the Doric lands. If the local oil industry, sorry the P&J, was calling Mr Sarwar a traitor then what's it going to say about the Lords and Masters in London?
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
“Government and opposition are joining in a conspiracy of silence in not acknowledging the scale of the choices and trade-offs that will face us after the election. They, and we, could be in for a rude awakening”
I agree with this. Labour's shyness on the difficult decisions seems to have developed into utter terror at saying anything remotely different from the government.
Absolutely, and it is very discouraging.
I have given them until the manifesto launch, because I am hoping that some of this is keeping their powder dry and making sure the Tories can’t set the narrative, but it worries me. A lot.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently. Because at this point it feels there’s a cigarette paper between them. And there’ll be a reckoning coming for any government who ducks the difficult decisions after the election. I don’t want Labour to fail, because I fear what would replace them as an alternative.
There are loads of ways Labour can still fail to win the election. Unvarnished honesty is right at the top of the list. If we go into the GE with Labour saying "It's loads worse than you think and we can't afford what we have now let alone free unicorns and owls, we ought to join the Single Market but we can't" while the Tories are saying "It's been tough because of reasons (Blair, Brown, EU, Covid, Ukraine, Russia, unions, Jezza, Hamas), but it's getting better because of Tories, don't let the socialists or the friends of Hamas near your wallet" then Labour will lose.
They have to win the voters, not PBers.
Quite so. See also the endless siren calls on here for Labour to release its policies before manifesto time.
The nondom policy heist proves the old adage: "If the opposition broadcasts any good ideas, the government will simply steal them."
I think the nondom policy (and the windfall tax) goes beyond that old adage, given how long and loud the Tories opposed the policy, and how much Tory opposition there is to the windfall tax.
It's a sign of desperation for the Tories that they will implement Labour policies they disagree with, solely for the purpose of trying to create a difficulty for Labour when it comes to writing their manifesto.
It was the same with HS2. The point of scrapping it was mainly to create a trap for Labour.
There's quite a lot of random damage being done to public policy as a result of that sort of game-playing.
Sure, but politics is a brutal game.
Labour need to be more savvy – the nondom heist is proof of that.
I agree. Labour should have done more in terms of general mood music - this is what is wrong, and these are the principles that will make things better - and less of the specific policy proposals.
When the Tories took over in 2010 they had a very clear message - Labour overspending and mismanagement crashed the economy and we have to do grown-up things to clear up the mess.
What's Labour's message?
"We are only 20 points ahead in the polls; Where did we all go wrong"?
More seriously, their address to most voters is: We are centrist boring Labour and we are not the Tories. Vote for us. Secondly: Only two parties can form a UK government. It isn't possible to be less competent than the current one. As Sherlock Holmes says 'Once you have eliminated the impossible'.....'
That's fair. Perhaps the Tories would have done better in 2010 with less of a message?
But I think the benefit of creating a story like this is felt more at the election afterwards. The Tories were able to do a lot of unpopular things during 2010-15, and the story they told the public about those changes won them a majority in 2015.
Starmer and Labour might win a massive majority on the back of vagueness, but they then face losing it all in one go at the election afterwards if they have failed to create the narrative for their government.
Of course. The great way of not having to face that problem is to lose the 2024 election. Which is what would happen if they went in for transparent honesty. Elections are fought exactly one at a time.
So essentially let’s just bury our heads in the sand and worry about it once we’re elected.
It’s a strategy. I fear it is a dangerous one. It might see them into power - it might not, however, be very helpful in keeping them there.
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
“Government and opposition are joining in a conspiracy of silence in not acknowledging the scale of the choices and trade-offs that will face us after the election. They, and we, could be in for a rude awakening”
I agree with this. Labour's shyness on the difficult decisions seems to have developed into utter terror at saying anything remotely different from the government.
Absolutely, and it is very discouraging.
I have given them until the manifesto launch, because I am hoping that some of this is keeping their powder dry and making sure the Tories can’t set the narrative, but it worries me. A lot.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently. Because at this point it feels there’s a cigarette paper between them. And there’ll be a reckoning coming for any government who ducks the difficult decisions after the election. I don’t want Labour to fail, because I fear what would replace them as an alternative.
There are loads of ways Labour can still fail to win the election. Unvarnished honesty is right at the top of the list. If we go into the GE with Labour saying "It's loads worse than you think and we can't afford what we have now let alone free unicorns and owls, we ought to join the Single Market but we can't" while the Tories are saying "It's been tough because of reasons (Blair, Brown, EU, Covid, Ukraine, Russia, unions, Jezza, Hamas), but it's getting better because of Tories, don't let the socialists or the friends of Hamas near your wallet" then Labour will lose.
They have to win the voters, not PBers.
Quite so. See also the endless siren calls on here for Labour to release its policies before manifesto time.
The nondom policy heist proves the old adage: "If the opposition broadcasts any good ideas, the government will simply steal them."
I think the nondom policy (and the windfall tax) goes beyond that old adage, given how long and loud the Tories opposed the policy, and how much Tory opposition there is to the windfall tax.
It's a sign of desperation for the Tories that they will implement Labour policies they disagree with, solely for the purpose of trying to create a difficulty for Labour when it comes to writing their manifesto.
It was the same with HS2. The point of scrapping it was mainly to create a trap for Labour.
There's quite a lot of random damage being done to public policy as a result of that sort of game-playing.
Sure, but politics is a brutal game.
Labour need to be more savvy – the nondom heist is proof of that.
I agree. Labour should have done more in terms of general mood music - this is what is wrong, and these are the principles that will make things better - and less of the specific policy proposals.
When the Tories took over in 2010 they had a very clear message - Labour overspending and mismanagement crashed the economy and we have to do grown-up things to clear up the mess.
What's Labour's message?
"We are only 20 points ahead in the polls; Where did we all go wrong"?
More seriously, their address to most voters is: We are centrist boring Labour and we are not the Tories. Vote for us. Secondly: Only two parties can form a UK government. It isn't possible to be less competent than the current one. As Sherlock Holmes says 'Once you have eliminated the impossible'.....'
That's fair. Perhaps the Tories would have done better in 2010 with less of a message?
But I think the benefit of creating a story like this is felt more at the election afterwards. The Tories were able to do a lot of unpopular things during 2010-15, and the story they told the public about those changes won them a majority in 2015.
Starmer and Labour might win a massive majority on the back of vagueness, but they then face losing it all in one go at the election afterwards if they have failed to create the narrative for their government.
Of course. The great way of not having to face that problem is to lose the 2024 election. Which is what would happen if they went in for transparent honesty. Elections are fought exactly one at a time.
So essentially let’s just bury our heads in the sand and worry about it once we’re elected.
It’s a strategy. I fear it is a dangerous one. It might see them into power - it might not, however, be very helpful in keeping them there.
Yes, that is more or less how it is. I am sure they would all welcome thoughts on how better to have a 20 point lead in the polls. I don't think there is such a way. That is because of how voters are, not politicians as such.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
“Government and opposition are joining in a conspiracy of silence in not acknowledging the scale of the choices and trade-offs that will face us after the election. They, and we, could be in for a rude awakening”
I agree with this. Labour's shyness on the difficult decisions seems to have developed into utter terror at saying anything remotely different from the government.
Absolutely, and it is very discouraging.
I have given them until the manifesto launch, because I am hoping that some of this is keeping their powder dry and making sure the Tories can’t set the narrative, but it worries me. A lot.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently. Because at this point it feels there’s a cigarette paper between them. And there’ll be a reckoning coming for any government who ducks the difficult decisions after the election. I don’t want Labour to fail, because I fear what would replace them as an alternative.
There are loads of ways Labour can still fail to win the election. Unvarnished honesty is right at the top of the list. If we go into the GE with Labour saying "It's loads worse than you think and we can't afford what we have now let alone free unicorns and owls, we ought to join the Single Market but we can't" while the Tories are saying "It's been tough because of reasons (Blair, Brown, EU, Covid, Ukraine, Russia, unions, Jezza, Hamas), but it's getting better because of Tories, don't let the socialists or the friends of Hamas near your wallet" then Labour will lose.
They have to win the voters, not PBers.
Quite so. See also the endless siren calls on here for Labour to release its policies before manifesto time.
The nondom policy heist proves the old adage: "If the opposition broadcasts any good ideas, the government will simply steal them."
I think the nondom policy (and the windfall tax) goes beyond that old adage, given how long and loud the Tories opposed the policy, and how much Tory opposition there is to the windfall tax.
It's a sign of desperation for the Tories that they will implement Labour policies they disagree with, solely for the purpose of trying to create a difficulty for Labour when it comes to writing their manifesto.
It was the same with HS2. The point of scrapping it was mainly to create a trap for Labour.
There's quite a lot of random damage being done to public policy as a result of that sort of game-playing.
Sure, but politics is a brutal game.
Labour need to be more savvy – the nondom heist is proof of that.
I agree. Labour should have done more in terms of general mood music - this is what is wrong, and these are the principles that will make things better - and less of the specific policy proposals.
When the Tories took over in 2010 they had a very clear message - Labour overspending and mismanagement crashed the economy and we have to do grown-up things to clear up the mess.
What's Labour's message?
"We are only 20 points ahead in the polls; Where did we all go wrong"?
More seriously, their address to most voters is: We are centrist boring Labour and we are not the Tories. Vote for us. Secondly: Only two parties can form a UK government. It isn't possible to be less competent than the current one. As Sherlock Holmes says 'Once you have eliminated the impossible'.....'
That's fair. Perhaps the Tories would have done better in 2010 with less of a message?
But I think the benefit of creating a story like this is felt more at the election afterwards. The Tories were able to do a lot of unpopular things during 2010-15, and the story they told the public about those changes won them a majority in 2015.
Starmer and Labour might win a massive majority on the back of vagueness, but they then face losing it all in one go at the election afterwards if they have failed to create the narrative for their government.
Of course. The great way of not having to face that problem is to lose the 2024 election. Which is what would happen if they went in for transparent honesty. Elections are fought exactly one at a time.
So essentially let’s just bury our heads in the sand and worry about it once we’re elected.
It’s a strategy. I fear it is a dangerous one. It might see them into power - it might not, however, be very helpful in keeping them there.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
“Government and opposition are joining in a conspiracy of silence in not acknowledging the scale of the choices and trade-offs that will face us after the election. They, and we, could be in for a rude awakening”
I agree with this. Labour's shyness on the difficult decisions seems to have developed into utter terror at saying anything remotely different from the government.
Absolutely, and it is very discouraging.
I have given them until the manifesto launch, because I am hoping that some of this is keeping their powder dry and making sure the Tories can’t set the narrative, but it worries me. A lot.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently. Because at this point it feels there’s a cigarette paper between them. And there’ll be a reckoning coming for any government who ducks the difficult decisions after the election. I don’t want Labour to fail, because I fear what would replace them as an alternative.
There are loads of ways Labour can still fail to win the election. Unvarnished honesty is right at the top of the list. If we go into the GE with Labour saying "It's loads worse than you think and we can't afford what we have now let alone free unicorns and owls, we ought to join the Single Market but we can't" while the Tories are saying "It's been tough because of reasons (Blair, Brown, EU, Covid, Ukraine, Russia, unions, Jezza, Hamas), but it's getting better because of Tories, don't let the socialists or the friends of Hamas near your wallet" then Labour will lose.
They have to win the voters, not PBers.
Quite so. See also the endless siren calls on here for Labour to release its policies before manifesto time.
The nondom policy heist proves the old adage: "If the opposition broadcasts any good ideas, the government will simply steal them."
I think the nondom policy (and the windfall tax) goes beyond that old adage, given how long and loud the Tories opposed the policy, and how much Tory opposition there is to the windfall tax.
It's a sign of desperation for the Tories that they will implement Labour policies they disagree with, solely for the purpose of trying to create a difficulty for Labour when it comes to writing their manifesto.
It was the same with HS2. The point of scrapping it was mainly to create a trap for Labour.
There's quite a lot of random damage being done to public policy as a result of that sort of game-playing.
Sure, but politics is a brutal game.
Labour need to be more savvy – the nondom heist is proof of that.
I agree. Labour should have done more in terms of general mood music - this is what is wrong, and these are the principles that will make things better - and less of the specific policy proposals.
When the Tories took over in 2010 they had a very clear message - Labour overspending and mismanagement crashed the economy and we have to do grown-up things to clear up the mess.
What's Labour's message?
"We are only 20 points ahead in the polls; Where did we all go wrong"?
More seriously, their address to most voters is: We are centrist boring Labour and we are not the Tories. Vote for us. Secondly: Only two parties can form a UK government. It isn't possible to be less competent than the current one. As Sherlock Holmes says 'Once you have eliminated the impossible'.....'
That's fair. Perhaps the Tories would have done better in 2010 with less of a message?
But I think the benefit of creating a story like this is felt more at the election afterwards. The Tories were able to do a lot of unpopular things during 2010-15, and the story they told the public about those changes won them a majority in 2015.
Starmer and Labour might win a massive majority on the back of vagueness, but they then face losing it all in one go at the election afterwards if they have failed to create the narrative for their government.
Of course. The great way of not having to face that problem is to lose the 2024 election. Which is what would happen if they went in for transparent honesty. Elections are fought exactly one at a time.
So essentially let’s just bury our heads in the sand and worry about it once we’re elected.
It’s a strategy. I fear it is a dangerous one. It might see them into power - it might not, however, be very helpful in keeping them there.
Worked pretty well in 1997-2001.
I don’t get the reference. Blair’s government was not policy light.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
Is realism such a great virtue in international affairs? Don't we respect people who defy realism, like Zelenskiy in 2022 or Churchill in 1940?
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
You would have to be fairly stupid to make a long term investment decision based on a tax rate that may only exist for the next tax year (or even less time)
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
Is realism such a great virtue in international affairs? Don't we respect people who defy realism, like Zelenskiy in 2022 or Churchill in 1940?
Just taking the Realist approach out for a spin - you know, drive the other guys car.
Where do you think the Ukraine/Republic of China border should be?
Good morning from Wembley. I note the Trump thread and nod that the budget was such a non-event that it has no political implications the morning after.
So, stick or twist. Is the "actually you're still paying the most amount of tax ever" budget enough to make Sunak sprint for May? Or do they need another autumn statement and thus slide towards ELE?
The big story from yesterday is Hunt's journey on equalising IT and NI which is something labour should be in favour off not objecting strenuously to it this morning
Nothing sides more with workers than this policy and I expect it to be in the conservative manifesto
As you know I'm not voting Labour...
The simple truth is that almost none of these budget measures will be enacted, by any party. The country is broken and something more substantial will be needed after the election, whenever it is.
The NI and child benefit changes together with 8.5% pension increases will be in April's pay packets
Both of which reduce the size of the tax increase. Like reducing inflation, its still an increase...
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
The lack of detail as to cause of death says it was a suicide.
But thanks for confirming your troll status
A suicide lol. This from the mirror today.
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 after short illness as devastated friends pay tribute BBC's Nick Sheridan, who best known for his work as a presenter on BBC Scotland, has sadly died at the age of 32 following a short illness
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 as devastated friends pay tribute(Twitter/ @nick_sheridan) By Susan Knox 11:32, 7 Mar 2024UPDATED11
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
You would have to be fairly stupid to make a long term investment decision based on a tax rate that may only exist for the next tax year (or even less time)
But for a landlord thinking of selling up to retire or leave the BTL/holiday let market bringing forward that long-term investment decision to take advantage of what might be a temporary tax reduction is a perfectly rational approach.
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
How's your council tax risen by 10% PA for 3 years ?
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
The lack of detail as to cause of death says it was a suicide.
But thanks for confirming your troll status
A suicide lol. This from the mirror today.
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 after short illness as devastated friends pay tribute BBC's Nick Sheridan, who best known for his work as a presenter on BBC Scotland, has sadly died at the age of 32 following a short illness
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 as devastated friends pay tribute(Twitter/ @nick_sheridan) By Susan Knox 11:32, 7 Mar 2024UPDATED11
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
So it has a right to kill as many women and children as it wants. Its a point of view.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently.
Labour is going "OMG taxes are so high!" whilst having not the slightest intention of cutting taxes and spending. I think Labour plans to "solve" the problem with above trend growth and yet has not come up with anything beyond the usual hot-air for explaining how that might be achieved. I'm 90% sure Labour isn't remotely willing to take the sort of gambles that might be required to really support higher growth.
I heard a fair bit of commentary yesterday about the budget from politicians of various parties and almost all of it was either nonsense or simply wrong. Mind you I'm only mildly worried about the economy as I think we face far more trouble if Trump is re-elected. Whoever wins the general election is going to find the next term in office as difficult or even worse than this one.
It seems that the current forecasts for growth are built in already, so Labour would need sustained growth above this in order to fund anything that way.
Short of reversing Brexit, it is hard to see what they, or the Tories, could do to generate such short term growth.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
You would have to be fairly stupid to make a long term investment decision based on a tax rate that may only exist for the next tax year (or even less time)
But for a landlord thinking of selling up to retire or leave the BTL/holiday let market bringing forward that long-term investment decision to take advantage of what might be a temporary tax reduction is a perfectly rational approach.
Hunt's "Laffer curve" for this CGT change only lasts a few short years according to the Red Book forecasts.
And costs £70m in this tax year. Which is the only relevant year as Reeves is not going to keep this one.
Jeremy Hunt’s Budget has been reasonably well-received by Conservative MPs. But certainly not spectacularly well-received.
Part of that is probably in the sequencing. The simple fact is that the chancellor’s immediate audience already knew about the biggest announcement - the 2% cut in National Insurance - and nothing came along to overtake that.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
Starmer and Reeves’ criticisms of the budget and the Tory government are all very worthy and accurate. The question still remains what they would do differently.
Labour is going "OMG taxes are so high!" whilst having not the slightest intention of cutting taxes and spending. I think Labour plans to "solve" the problem with above trend growth and yet has not come up with anything beyond the usual hot-air for explaining how that might be achieved. I'm 90% sure Labour isn't remotely willing to take the sort of gambles that might be required to really support higher growth.
I heard a fair bit of commentary yesterday about the budget from politicians of various parties and almost all of it was either nonsense or simply wrong. Mind you I'm only mildly worried about the economy as I think we face far more trouble if Trump is re-elected. Whoever wins the general election is going to find the next term in office as difficult or even worse than this one.
It seems that the current forecasts for growth are built in already, so Labour would need sustained growth above this in order to fund anything that way.
Short of reversing Brexit, it is hard to see what they, or the Tories, could do to generate such short term growth.
They could always try massively increasing immigration. That may do the trick.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
But we’re not talking about Israel’s right to do what it believes it should do in a war (which surely even you believe must have some limits). We’re talking about settlements in the West Bank, which Israel has been building for decades.
Interesting thread. The legal status of internet tracking just got a bit questionable.
Oomph. This was expected but the highest court European just ruled brutally against industry adtech group IAB. It’s technical but it confirms two things: IAB is a joint controller and its consent string system is personal data. Basically, the surveillance scheme ain’t cool. /1.. https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1765713158713311661
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
How's your council tax risen by 10% PA for 3 years ?
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
It was 9.9% last year and will be 9.6% this year and the Welsh labour government does not enforce a cap and respect Councils responsibility apparently
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
You would have to be fairly stupid to make a long term investment decision based on a tax rate that may only exist for the next tax year (or even less time)
But for a landlord thinking of selling up to retire or leave the BTL/holiday let market bringing forward that long-term investment decision to take advantage of what might be a temporary tax reduction is a perfectly rational approach.
Hunt's "Laffer curve" for this CGT change only lasts a few short years according to the Red Book forecasts.
And costs £70m in this tax year. Which is the only relevant year as Reeves is not going to keep this one.
It's a ploy that owes more to the fire-sale concept than Laffer curve; get more revenue this year in the short term at the expense of future receipts. It's the spaffer curve.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
Jeremy Hunt’s Budget has been reasonably well-received by Conservative MPs. But certainly not spectacularly well-received.
Part of that is probably in the sequencing. The simple fact is that the chancellor’s immediate audience already knew about the biggest announcement - the 2% cut in National Insurance - and nothing came along to overtake that.
Which begs the question what on earth was the purpose of leaking the NI cut early? or was it a cock-up?
There's an expectation now that most of the main points of the budget will be leaked in advance. So, if you don't provide those leaks you create a vacuum. That vacuum will be filled by wishful thinking and lobbying.
If the NI cut hadn't been leaked then you could easily have seen a situation where an expectation of a cut in income tax would be created, or an abolition of inheritance tax, or any number of other tax cuts.
Then the announcement of the NI cut would have been extremely disappointing, rather than just underwhelming.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Jeremy Hunt’s Budget has been reasonably well-received by Conservative MPs. But certainly not spectacularly well-received.
Part of that is probably in the sequencing. The simple fact is that the chancellor’s immediate audience already knew about the biggest announcement - the 2% cut in National Insurance - and nothing came along to overtake that.
Which begs the question what on earth was the purpose of leaking the NI cut early? or was it a cock-up?
There's an expectation now that most of the main points of the budget will be leaked in advance. So, if you don't provide those leaks you create a vacuum. That vacuum will be filled by wishful thinking and lobbying.
If the NI cut hadn't been leaked then you could easily have seen a situation where an expectation of a cut in income tax would be created, or an abolition of inheritance tax, or any number of other tax cuts.
Then the announcement of the NI cut would have been extremely disappointing, rather than just underwhelming.
Then leak sobriety and expectation management before delivering on the upside. Just like Labour are doing tbf.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
This cannot be true. Amy Lame was interviewed on a BBC Politics show at the weekend and said all the problems of closing venues were down to the administration before Sadiq Khan's and he is doing a great job.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Give it 20 years Leon and you will be out praying at the mosque to get some excitement.
I’m done with London. It’s over
From what I recall, this is simply a return to the situation that existed across the country as a whole prior to 2005. Presumably Margaret Thatcher (who had lots of opportunity to change it) was also under the control of the Imams?
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
How's your council tax risen by 10% PA for 3 years ?
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
It was 9.9% last year and will be 9.6% this year and the Welsh labour government does not enforce a cap and respect Councils responsibility apparently
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Give it 20 years Leon and you will be out praying at the mosque to get some excitement.
I’m done with London. It’s over
From what I recall, this is simply a return to the situation that existed across the country as a whole prior to 2005. Presumably Margaret Thatcher (who had lots of opportunity to change it) was also under the control of the Imams?
She did wear a headscarf at times. Definitely some 'legitimate questions' to be asked on that front.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
A recent consultation found that 75% of Hackney residents said they were opposed to the council’s plans for a clamp down on the borough’s night time economy. This included 77% against doubling the size of the Shoreditch ‘Special Policy Area’ and 84% against making new bars close at 11pm on weekdays and midnight at weekends anywhere in the borough.
The residents are against it. Are other boroughs likely to follow suit (Thinking particularly Islington and Camden...) ? I'd have thought it's one of the big plus points for somewhere like London and surely a big attractor for young people ?!?
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
Here's the big number we can't afford to ignore. And it wasn't mentioned in the Budget. Since the financial crisis the population has risen by six million, 10%
The Treasury and OBR orthodoxy is that we needed this enormous increase in immigration for growth. But something doesn't make sense. Growth has been sluggish since the GFC. We have a productivity crisis. Might there be a connection?
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
🧐🤷🏼♂️
Gentrification. Bit like people moving to the country and complaining about farmers driving their cattle down Cow Lane (mentioned in the Doomsday Book)
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
“We’ve been talking about this for such a long time,” she said. “The choices and options are great – you can meet for lunch, come here and then come home, go let the dog out, watch the 10 o’clock news. You’ve got your Sunday free. I’m in my 50s, we’re the generation who invented rave in Ibiza. We were London ravers, too cool for school. It makes sense to us.”
@e_casalicchio Little surprise Hunt is now pouring cold water on his own NICs-abolishing hint.
Labour is arguing it's a BIGGER unfunded tax pledge than Truss announced — even though it's a vague ambition with no timeline
But last thing Hunt wants is to be put in the same boat as Truss
It’s not an unfunded tax cut since it hasn’t been put forward as a proposal without compensatory changes elsewhere. Getting rid of NI will be a good thing, but Labour want to poison the well on this, too, like they did with social care?
I think you've got your tenses wrong.
"Will" refers to it as something that is going to happen. Clearly you meant to use would i.e "Getting rid of NI WOULD be a good thing...". The plans for such a change don't exist beyond a vague ambition floated by someone who won't be around as Chancellor in 2025 and may not even be an MP, and as you say the compensatory changes are not spelt out.
However, even by floating the idea of getting rid of NI, what Hunt might have done is to open the door to a future Labour government merging income tax and employees NI into a new "national income contribution". If that was done simply by abolishing employees NI and loading the basic rate of income tax, then to raise the same amount of revenue the new rebranded tax could be levied at a lower basic rate than the present 20% income tax and 8% employees NI combined. And if the basic rate of the new "national income contribution" were set at say 25% or 26%, then Tory sophistry couldn't ignore NI and accuse Labour of raising the basic rate of income tax, because income tax would no longer exist.
Pensioner fury ! I think Malc would pop if that happened.
You mean the same Malc who pays no NI at 10% now 8%, has no student loan to repay at 9%, no employee pension contribution to make at say 5%, and pays no travel to work costs or childcare costs in order to be able to earn any income? And has probably already paid off the mortgage so lives without paying any housing costs let alone the extra cost of bringing up a family?
You describe my position fairly well but I do pay £3,800 in council tax which has risen by near 10% pa for 3 years
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
How's your council tax risen by 10% PA for 3 years ?
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
It was 9.9% last year and will be 9.6% this year and the Welsh labour government does not enforce a cap and respect Councils responsibility apparently
Woking council was a particularly poorly managed BOROUGH ! (So no adult care responsibilities) council. I'd have thought the best remedy for them would be to let their lenders take the hit.
Ben Bradley, who seemingly has every gov't job in Nottinghamshire reckons Notts C Council won't hit bankruptcy and is running for mayor basically against Labour's Nottingham City mess.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Ukraine hasn't relinquished their claim on Crimea.
Ukraine didn't trigger the war.
Jordan have relinquished their claim on the West Bank.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
Israel thinks it's war.
It actually being war wouldn't excuse what is happening let alone just thinking it is.
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
We have, since WWII, tried to make the world a better place. There are few examples of annexation by aggression that have been allowed to stand. We went to war to liberate Kuwait after Iraq annexed it. We are supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria stand as failures of the modern order, although Russia has stopped short of formal annexation. You could go back to India taking Goa, I suppose.
Oh absolutely we don't necessarily like it but it happens. Plus the call has for as far as I can remember been "land for peace". The difficulty comes when one party doesn't want peace, it wants total victory and elimination of the enemy and no I'm not talking about Israel.
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
Both Israel and Palestine have made attempts at peace. Both have, at other times, frustrated attempts at peace. You could go back and forth as to who is more to blame. But collective punishment is wrong. Telling the average Palestinian that they’ll get no sympathy from you because it was their great-grandfather who made the wrong decision in 1947 doesn’t solve much.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Hamas is the current government of Gaza. Israel is at war with Gaza. Nothing to do with grandparents.
Oh so Dave has opined. Gotit. We have seen (conflicting accounts of) what happens to aid deliveries to Gaza via Egypt.
So what do you think the situation is? And what kind of war is it? It's not as if Israel has recognised Gazan independence.
I think my views on this are relatively well rehearsed on this site. Israel saw the incursion on October 7th as if not an act of war then certainly a casus belli and went to war in response.
One for you. Suppose the IDF had all been on leave on October 7th. At what point do you think the Hamas (and other, ordinary decent Gazan citizen) forces would have stopped.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
“We’ve been talking about this for such a long time,” she said. “The choices and options are great – you can meet for lunch, come here and then come home, go let the dog out, watch the 10 o’clock news. You’ve got your Sunday free. I’m in my 50s, we’re the generation who invented rave in Ibiza. We were London ravers, too cool for school. It makes sense to us.”
The vast majority of UK raves back in the day were unlicensed anyway.
Yep. As I pointed out yesterday - this is effectively a Brucey Bonus for landlords who are selling.
Ordinary voters dont pay it as not on residential property you live in.
What on earth is Hunt's logic with this cut?
In theory there is a Laffer Curve effect.
In practice it may encourage second home owners to sell, particularly those with furnished let's, thereby potentially allowing others to buy.
Presumably to be bought by other landlords and second home owners. The only change that has occurred is that it has become more attractive to be a landlord or second home owner, relative to investing in other forms of capital.
You would have to be fairly stupid to make a long term investment decision based on a tax rate that may only exist for the next tax year (or even less time)
But for a landlord thinking of selling up to retire or leave the BTL/holiday let market bringing forward that long-term investment decision to take advantage of what might be a temporary tax reduction is a perfectly rational approach.
Hunt's "Laffer curve" for this CGT change only lasts a few short years according to the Red Book forecasts.
And costs £70m in this tax year. Which is the only relevant year as Reeves is not going to keep this one.
What is this tax cut?
Measures in the budget were the other way if anything.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
A recent consultation found that 75% of Hackney residents said they were opposed to the council’s plans for a clamp down on the borough’s night time economy. This included 77% against doubling the size of the Shoreditch ‘Special Policy Area’ and 84% against making new bars close at 11pm on weekdays and midnight at weekends anywhere in the borough.
The residents are against it. Are other boroughs likely to follow suit (Thinking particularly Islington and Camden...) ? I'd have thought it's one of the big plus points for somewhere like London and surely a big attractor for young people ?!?
Yes, I don’t get it
I wonder if there is corruption. There is so much money to be made converting pubs and clubs into flats and houses. But they are literally destroying London as a 24/7 world city, so in the end it’s entirely counter productive. London will lose allure and property prices will fall
At least one country has no problem with building new houses.
Sheep as a lamb is probably the thinking.
Stealing someone's back yard certainly solves the NIMBY thing.
It's not stealing, it was owned by Jordan and Jordan relinquished it.
Arafat had an opportunity to create a Palestinian state in that land but rejected it. He chose instead to keep the border issue undecided in favour of future negotiations.
C'est la vie.
Israel can and absolutely should do whatever suits their own interests and strengthens their hand in future negotiations. Pandering has failed.
Nonsense. Israel has no more right to annex (and ethnically cleanse) the West Bank than Russia does to annex Crimea. Israel, like all countries, should obey international law.
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "Russia" and read it back. Would you agree with that? Why does Israel get to act differently?
Replace "Israel" in your last paragraph with "England", "the West Bank" with "The United States of America" or "Australia" or "Ireland" or indeed countless other examples of land acquisition through conquest and war, and you will begin to understand how the world actually works.
Shouldn't the Palestinians be Realistic about confronting a nuclear power that has an ideological belief that it should have their land? Give up and move somewhere else? Rather than fighting other peoples proxy wars to the last Palestinian?
I can't speak for the Palestinians but throughout history lands have been acquired and reaquired. I'm betting that some have done so since the formation of UNWRA which institutionalised the "refugee" status. And look at the IRA. They haven't given up and moved somewhere else.
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
Ah. There are "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it like.
Well, you know, wars are pretty awful and usually stem from "competing claims". So Israel has the right to do what it believes it should do in a war.
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
Is it a war ? Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
Israel thinks it's war.
It actually being war wouldn't excuse what is happening let alone just thinking it is.
I know. War is shit. But luckily we can rely on you to let us know what should be happening. Perhaps yet another letter calls to Bibi. Just set out your thinking clearly and I'm sure it will have an effect.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
What is it about Hackney, tho - once the exciting new centre of London nightlife - that makes it want to kill off bars and clubs and the hedonistic economy?
“We’ve been talking about this for such a long time,” she said. “The choices and options are great – you can meet for lunch, come here and then come home, go let the dog out, watch the 10 o’clock news. You’ve got your Sunday free. I’m in my 50s, we’re the generation who invented rave in Ibiza. We were London ravers, too cool for school. It makes sense to us.”
The vast majority of UK raves back in the day were unlicensed anyway.
“The Berserk After Work. All Hellfire on a dimmer switch.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
A recent consultation found that 75% of Hackney residents said they were opposed to the council’s plans for a clamp down on the borough’s night time economy. This included 77% against doubling the size of the Shoreditch ‘Special Policy Area’ and 84% against making new bars close at 11pm on weekdays and midnight at weekends anywhere in the borough.
The residents are against it. Are other boroughs likely to follow suit (Thinking particularly Islington and Camden...) ? I'd have thought it's one of the big plus points for somewhere like London and surely a big attractor for young people ?!?
Yes, I don’t get it
I wonder if there is corruption. There is so much money to be made converting pubs and clubs into flats and houses. But they are literally destroying London as a 24/7 world city, so in the end it’s entirely counter productive. London will lose allure and property prices will fall
As long as government policy is to pump 500k to 1000k migrants into the country per year, house prices will not fall.
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
London nightlife under Khan, and the imams and nimbies of gloom
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
There are very few imams in Hackney. The population is Black - White - Turkish - with a smattering of Vietnamese, plus the Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill.
And it seems actual residents - at least in aggregate - are AGAINST shutting down the nighttime economy.
What seems to be happening is a toxic combination of nimbyism (“I moved next to a nightclub, and I want it closed by 11”), and the sad demographic/economic shift that is seeing young people disappear from inner London.
...There are next to no negative externalities from motoring...
Apart from the deaths and injuries and the cost of the emergency services?
The average number of deaths per mile driven in the UK is 0.000000009
A figure so minisculely low you need scientific notation to get a calculator to even display it.
What number of deaths per mile would you need for it to count as a negative externality?
Ultimately, there are about 1,500 deaths in the UK on the roads each year - and we're one of the safest countries in which to drive in the world. There are many more significant injuries. I'd certainly not argue that people shouldn't drive because of it - and that's not what a negative externality is. But to pretend it's a trivial negative externality is not one of your better takes.
A number that's not a rounding error from zero at 9 significant figures?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
jesus why can't we block posts from this psycho?
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?
Comments
UC rolled up, I think, 6 previous benefits which had to be applied for separately, so people were now getting benefits they previously had not applied for. To my understanding, this was as IDS intended, but it was costing the Treasury more, so Osborne simply cut the amounts of benefit.
It’s a strategy. I fear it is a dangerous one. It might see them into power - it might not, however, be very helpful in keeping them there.
PM in the making.
needs to be a bit more nuanced. But I get the start slowly thing.
https://x.com/peachypuk/status/1765696533289189551?s=20
But thanks for confirming your troll status
Where do you think the Ukraine/Republic of China border should be?
The problem is that AFAIA Israel has existed for quite some time and hence there are competing claims. Israel agreed to the UN 1947 partition plan but the Arabs didn't. More fool them because they lost the subsequent war and some lands with it. As I said how wars work. And they have been losing wars, and land, since.
I believe it is correct to equalise the tax paid between workers and pensioners, but judging by Starmer and Reeves reaction they have no intention of doing it and are now claiming it is an unfunded tax cut of 45 billion when of course it is not
You increase the tax rate to say 22% with corresponding increases in higher rates, but also increase personal allowances to shield poorer pensioners and over a time scale of several years
I expect this to be a very important dividing line at the next GE
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 after short illness as devastated friends pay tribute
BBC's Nick Sheridan, who best known for his work as a presenter on BBC Scotland, has sadly died at the age of 32 following a short illness
BBC presenter Nick Sheridan dies at 32 as devastated friends pay tribute(Twitter/ @nick_sheridan)
By Susan Knox
11:32, 7 Mar 2024UPDATED11
Israel has tried 53 different ways of coming to peace with the Arab world short of throwing themselves en masse into the Mediterranean. At some point, just as they did in 1947-48 and subsequently even unto today, they think "fuck it". And the Millwall principle applies.
I thought only bankrupt councils could go with such whopping increases. Or are you in Drakeford's new band "I" ?
Other than that I'm not sure what you are trying to get at which is unusual for you because you are so clever.
It would be great if Hamas and Netanyahu’s government picked different paths, and the Palestinian National Authority and opposition parties in Israel are offering alternative approaches. We shouldn’t equate Hamas with all Palestinians, or Bibi with all Israelis. Reaching a long-term solution will obviously be difficult. But a good approach is to stick to some principles, like forced annexation is wrong, in all situations.
Short of reversing Brexit, it is hard to see what they, or the Tories, could do to generate such short term growth.
And costs £70m in this tax year. Which is the only relevant year as Reeves is not going to keep this one.
Part of that is probably in the sequencing. The simple fact is that the chancellor’s immediate audience already knew about the biggest announcement - the 2% cut in National Insurance - and nothing came along to overtake that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68497303 - 11:43
Which begs the question what on earth was the purpose of leaking the NI cut early? or was it a cock-up?
Given that Israel completely controls the borders, and almost all of the territory of Gaza, it now has the status of an occupation. Which brings with it legal responsibilities towards the population of the occupied territory.
As our Foreign Secretary pointed out yesterday.
The legal status of internet tracking just got a bit questionable.
Oomph. This was expected but the highest court European just ruled brutally against industry adtech group IAB. It’s technical but it confirms two things: IAB is a joint controller and its consent string system is personal data. Basically, the surveillance scheme ain’t cool. /1..
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1765713158713311661
“In Hackney, all new venues must close by 11PM Mon-Fri and 12PM at the weekend. No new venues can operate later than this.
Over time the existing venues will need new licenses and therefore the venues that are open after 11/12 will slowly erode until there is literally none left.”
https://x.com/lukerobertblack/status/1764372293357048228?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
This is Labour in Wales
https://north.wales/news/conwy/conwy-residents-face-nearly-10-council-tax-rise-for-second-year-running-47276.html
If the NI cut hadn't been leaked then you could easily have seen a situation where an expectation of a cut in income tax would be created, or an abolition of inheritance tax, or any number of other tax cuts.
Then the announcement of the NI cut would have been extremely disappointing, rather than just underwhelming.
But it's hardly Black Mirror.
🧐🤷🏼♂️
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/feb/11/daytime-clubbing-rave-generation-day-fever-club-london-outernet
https://www.wokingnewsandmail.co.uk/news/bankrupt-woking-borough-council-approves-budget-including-ps785-million-bailout-and-10-council-tax-rise-669865
Cameron tells Gantz as ‘occupying power’ Israel has legal responsibility for Gaza aid
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/cameron-tells-gantz-as-occupying-power-israel-has-legal-responsibility-for-gaza-aid/
A recent consultation found that 75% of Hackney residents said they were opposed to the council’s plans for a clamp down on the borough’s night time economy. This included 77% against doubling the size of the Shoreditch ‘Special Policy Area’ and 84% against making new bars close at 11pm on weekdays and midnight at weekends anywhere in the borough.
The residents are against it. Are other boroughs likely to follow suit (Thinking particularly Islington and Camden...) ? I'd have thought it's one of the big plus points for somewhere like London and surely a big attractor for young people ?!?
Here's the big number we can't afford to ignore. And it wasn't mentioned in the Budget. Since the financial crisis the population has risen by six million, 10%
The Treasury and OBR orthodoxy is that we needed this enormous increase in immigration for growth. But something doesn't make sense. Growth has been sluggish since the GFC. We have a productivity crisis. Might there be a connection?
“We’ve been talking about this for such a long time,” she said. “The choices and options are great – you can meet for lunch, come here and then come home, go let the dog out, watch the 10 o’clock news. You’ve got your Sunday free. I’m in my 50s, we’re the generation who invented rave in Ibiza. We were London ravers, too cool for school. It makes sense to us.”
Ben Bradley, who seemingly has every gov't job in Nottinghamshire reckons Notts C Council won't hit bankruptcy and is running for mayor basically against Labour's Nottingham City mess.
Ukraine didn't trigger the war.
Jordan have relinquished their claim on the West Bank.
Jordan did trigger the war.
So yeah, that analogy is null and void.
One for you. Suppose the IDF had all been on leave on October 7th. At what point do you think the Hamas (and other, ordinary decent Gazan citizen) forces would have stopped.
Measures in the budget were the other way if anything.
I wonder if there is corruption. There is so much money to be made converting pubs and clubs into flats and houses. But they are literally destroying
London as a 24/7 world city, so in the end it’s entirely counter productive. London will lose allure and property prices will fall
London isn’t back?
It is a trivial factor, our roads are safe. Accidents can happen in any walk of life, including walking and cycling, but any mile of driving has a 99.999991% chance of not causing a fatality.
The idea that we should have zero deaths or that roads are exceptionally dangerous is complete bunkum. Same kind of zero Covid BS.
- copyright Jay McInerney
The population is Black - White - Turkish - with a smattering of Vietnamese, plus the Orthodox Jews in Stamford Hill.
And it seems actual residents - at least in aggregate - are AGAINST shutting down the nighttime economy.
What seems to be happening is a toxic combination of nimbyism (“I moved next to a nightclub, and I want it closed by 11”), and the sad demographic/economic shift that is seeing young people disappear from inner London.
and you, you moron, why not give the number of deaths per inch of driving - that would be an even smaller number?
we know you are in favour of killing people, so what does it matter? surely you should be in favour of cars killing more people?