Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
They only thing we know for sure is Rayner made the mistake everyone makes, of not realising if you own a house before marriage it can come liable for CGT when own homes normally aren't.
At this point either HMRC will claim the tax and she pays it, or they don't and she doesn't. Speculation she lied to HMRC about her status seems baseless.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I AM in that position. I lived in a flat when single, my girlfriend lived in her flat. Then we bought a house together where we live with our children - that is our main residence - and rent our flats. If I were to sell my flat, I would be liable for taxes that I wouldn’t be if I sold the house we share. We paid higher stamp duty than if we didn’t own those flats and get it back if we sell them within three years
As with the transphobia aka trans hatred, so blackphobia aka black hatred aka racism. The situation in football generally, and in Spain in particular, is appalling right now:
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
So after everything that has happened in recent months you're still determined to make an equivalence between racism and trans. Why not just mention the racism in Spanish football? I sense you are trolling - believing there are two sexes is biological pseudoscience? If you want trans fundamentalism to succeed you are going to have to come up with better arguments.
And conflating 'transgender people' with 'trans activists', the latter being the true purveyors of hate and pseudoscience.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Brookie, It's a load of old bollocks (to use the technical term). Here in Surrey alone, two candidates have been selected - and both likely to survive the forthcoming massacre - who are decidedly on the party's right. One was a cheerleader at Ms. Truss's relaunch. Heaven preserve us all.
Damn it John, why do you always come over as so reasonable, nice and funny? You're a Tory; I'm not supposed to like you.
Just an act. In reality, I'm nasty, brutish and very very short.
If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.
I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.
What , crap as they are the corruption is in Westminster where the pig troughs are deep and wide. It is like an open prison for frauds and grifters.
Good morning Malc. Have you planted your turnips yet? You only have till April 15th for an early crop...
There has been a lot of corruption in Scotland. We await to see if the Police charge anyone and if so how many feel.the bracelets.
Corruption is endemic in Westminster so its not really news. .. People just sigh.
As Robin Mcalpine pointed out in a recent article, corruption is not confined to just the criminal acts. Setting up or largely funding think tanks and campaigning groups which then initiate and promote what becomes government policy, staffed by party activists or revolving door ex-politicos is even more debilitating.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Can they make it before 5pm? I have a dental appt.
Oh, lord, imagine spending your last minutes on earth in a dentist's chair. In pretty much any other circumstances it would make a non believer of you.
Imagine going to eternity with an untreated cavity.
I'm struggling with the idea that I will have teeth at all, certainly these teeth. I thought that if we had bodies at all then they were some idealised version when I was at a healthy age and had less of a podge. I don't want to be carrying an extra couple of stone around for eternity either.
Also, whether Rayner is "guilty" or not, ignorance of the law is a legitimate defence when it comes to tax law.
I said that from the start. It’s an honest mistake that didn’t earn her much money anyway. The strangeness is her elaborately unlikely story, which makes no difference to the legality, and her supporters willingness to buy it
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
I think our coal is Polish. There were GWs of wind electricity going unused in Ireland as Storm Kathleen passed, in part because Ireland still has an inflexible coal power station that can't be easily turned on only when it's needed, and in part because there isn't the storage capacity to absorb excess wind energy.
Massive arbitrage opportunity for electricity storage.
As with the transphobia aka trans hatred, so blackphobia aka black hatred aka racism. The situation in football generally, and in Spain in particular, is appalling right now:
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
So after everything that has happened in recent months you're still determined to make an equivalence between racism and trans. Why not just mention the racism in Spanish football? I sense you are trolling - believing there are two sexes is biological pseudoscience? If you want trans fundamentalism to succeed you are going to have to come up with better arguments.
And conflating 'transgender people' with 'trans activists', the latter being the true purveyors of hate and pseudoscience.
It is a rule of British media and politics that trans people do not exist. Instead the word "trans" is always followed by the word "activist", even if the person in question is not an activist. Once you spot this you can't unsee it. People are only ever described as trans people if they are invisible: the minute they become visible they are reclassified as "activists". It's pretty much a trope at this point
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
I was - I had 2013 Mondeo diesel for which I eventually took Mr Khan's £2k as I couldn't sell it for that, then subsequently bought a slightly newer but higher mileage car for £9k. Allowing for difference in condition I'm about £6k out of pocket.
Second hand cars have become really expensive (if they are ULEZ compliant) compared to a few years ago.
My window cleaner had to change his van. He is the only other person I know who was affected.
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
The one activity I find I can do whilst listening to a podcast is driving. Otherwise I just sit (or lie) there and do the podcast only. I treat it like reading. Not great for time management but given I'm rarely busy that's fine.
You don't cook much, as I recall ?
Podcasts - or BBC Sounds - are great for that.
Ah in fact I am doing the cooking most nights now. But we often chat as I do it so music can be nice but nothing talky.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
He says that the married couple had a main residence, the husbands house. and that means she’s liable for the tax on selling her own house
No you are doing exactly what the Daily Mail has done.
Where your main residence is for tax purposes is not the same as where she lived.
“ She has no main residence when she’s married. There’s a joint main residence. Absent an election, the fact he was always at his house, the kids were there, and she was sometimes there, means that his house was the main residence. “
- Dan Neidle
It seems to me that Neidle is saying that it doesn't matter what Rayner has said, her PPR was her husband's house and, chances are, she probably didn't owe tax on her own house anyway. But, Rayner has been behaving as though it does matter where she lived, which makes me think she could be in a spot of bother.
That’s exactly what he is saying. Rayner has denied living there, but it doesn’t matter whether she did or not. Her tweets from the time pretty much show she did consider it her home, so she looks like a liar. But even if she were telling the truth, she’d still be liable for the CGT
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Was that the one where Bozzatron had upended a large glass of claret on Carrie's new white carpet? We've all done it, TBF.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
I think our coal is Polish. There were GWs of wind electricity going unused in Ireland as Storm Kathleen passed, in part because Ireland still has an inflexible coal power station that can't be easily turned on only when it's needed, and in part because there isn't the storage capacity to absorb excess wind energy.
Massive arbitrage opportunity for electricity storage.
Electric cars for absorbing excess wind energy is the future. 👍
Clean, green transport which ought to be very cheap too.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
They are not that competent.
I assumed they were sending the conscripts to do all the other garrison work, border patrols etc to free up the professionals, contractors, criminals etc for combat duty.
The question is what happens when they eventually run out of non-conscripts. And when that will be.
As with the transphobia aka trans hatred, so blackphobia aka black hatred aka racism. The situation in football generally, and in Spain in particular, is appalling right now:
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
So after everything that has happened in recent months you're still determined to make an equivalence between racism and trans. Why not just mention the racism in Spanish football? I sense you are trolling - believing there are two sexes is biological pseudoscience? If you want trans fundamentalism to succeed you are going to have to come up with better arguments.
And conflating 'transgender people' with 'trans activists', the latter being the true purveyors of hate and pseudoscience.
It is a rule of British media and politics that trans people do not exist. Instead the word "trans" is always followed by the word "activist", even if the person in question is not an activist. Once you spot this you can't unsee it. People are only ever described as trans people if they are invisible: the minute they become visible they are reclassified as "activists". It's pretty much a trope at this point
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Was that the one where Bozzatron had upended a large glass of claret on Carrie's new white carpet? We've all done it, TBF.
I for one have never been anywhere near Carrie’s ‘white carpet’.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
I think our coal is Polish. There were GWs of wind electricity going unused in Ireland as Storm Kathleen passed, in part because Ireland still has an inflexible coal power station that can't be easily turned on only when it's needed, and in part because there isn't the storage capacity to absorb excess wind energy.
Massive arbitrage opportunity for electricity storage.
The responses to that Modi tweet were instructive. Almost 100% positive.
So online India is four square behind its leader? Or the BJP’s online propaganda machine showing just how powerful it is? By sheer force of numbers Indian government Twitter has inveigled its way into - and propagated its chosen positions on - Ukraine, Gaza, Indian domestic politics of course, and all things related to its geopolitical interests. Thankfully Modi doesn’t seem yet to have turned his troll farms on to UK or US politics but give it time.
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Was that the one where Bozzatron had upended a large glass of claret on Carrie's new white carpet? We've all done it, TBF.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Was that the one where Bozzatron had upended a large glass of claret on Carrie's new white carpet? We've all done it, TBF.
Having a white carpet is moronic. Everyone faces a ceaseless battle against dirt, but why make life so difficult for yourself with a white carpet?
If I had the I-don't-give-a-shit-what-you-think energy of our DuraAce I'd be spilling red wine onto, and treading mud into, any white carpet I came across on principle.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
They are not that competent.
My thesis is that your apparent belief that Putin cares about the 'law' - either national or international - is rather sweet and naive. As is your trust of Russian media.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
I recall my window cleaner’s comment about ULEZ (our area was in the first wave): that since it came in the windows on the busy rat run at the end of our road have been notably cleaner than before.
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
I was - I had 2013 Mondeo diesel for which I eventually took Mr Khan's £2k as I couldn't sell it for that, then subsequently bought a slightly newer but higher mileage car for £9k. Allowing for difference in condition I'm about £6k out of pocket.
Second hand cars have become really expensive (if they are ULEZ compliant) compared to a few years ago.
My window cleaner had to change his van. He is the only other person I know who was affected.
A good next step will be to phase out ice-cream vans that use an ICE to run their fridge, therefore keep their engine idling when stationary. I ran behind one the other day and the air was utterly filthy.
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Was that the one where Bozzatron had upended a large glass of claret on Carrie's new white carpet? We've all done it, TBF.
Having a white carpet is moronic. Everyone faces a ceaseless battle against dirt, but why make life so difficult for yourself with a white carpet?
If I had the I-don't-give-a-shit-what-you-think energy of our DuraAce I'd be spilling red wine onto, and treading mud into, any white carpet I came across on principle.
LOL! I feel similarly. Houses should be for living in. Yes, I get that people want pretty interiors (my wife is the same) but stuff needs to be practical too. I'm on Bozza's side (for once) on this one.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
It depends on context doesn't it?
If you could achieve a cut of three-quarters with more targeted action, than a cut of almost half with a broad brush approach is very low.
If air pollution measurement levels are relevant in terms of orders of magnitude, than a cut of almost half could be very low relative to the cuts required.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
I recall my window cleaner’s comment about ULEZ (our area was in the first wave): that since it came in the windows on the busy rat run at the end of our road have been notably cleaner than before.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
They are not that competent.
My thesis is that your apparent belief that Putin cares about the 'law' - either national or international - is rather sweet and naive. As is your trust of Russian media.
So is it happening or not? Or do you just not know?
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
They are not that competent.
My thesis is that your apparent belief that Putin cares about the 'law' - either national or international - is rather sweet and naive. As is your trust of Russian media.
To expand this: if a leader of a state controls the media, then they can successfully supress all mention of anything. And to control rumours; you allow a few stories to come out, and then really, really strongly punish the people who let it happen to show that you're stronk and have it all under control. And promise it won't happen again.
The Soviets used to do that a lot.
This is why a free media is so important, for all the problems that can cause.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
If thats the advice she was given then why not provide that advice to settle the argument?
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
I think our coal is Polish. There were GWs of wind electricity going unused in Ireland as Storm Kathleen passed, in part because Ireland still has an inflexible coal power station that can't be easily turned on only when it's needed, and in part because there isn't the storage capacity to absorb excess wind energy.
Massive arbitrage opportunity for electricity storage.
The responses to that Modi tweet were instructive. Almost 100% positive.
So online India is four square behind its leader? Or the BJP’s online propaganda machine showing just how powerful it is? By sheer force of numbers Indian government Twitter has inveigled its way into - and propagated its chosen positions on - Ukraine, Gaza, Indian domestic politics of course, and all things related to its geopolitical interests. Thankfully Modi doesn’t seem yet to have turned his troll farms on to UK or US politics but give it time.
His support is essentially secretarian so he will have a very strong and faithful following.
All he has to do is Hindu Nationalism and his base will lap it up - even if he kills the planet in the process.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
So your thesis is that the Russian Army routinely, and in violation of the law, send tens of thousands of people doing their mandatory military service (ie not contrakti) into combat in Ukraine and then successfully suppresses almost all mention of it?
They are not that competent.
My thesis is that your apparent belief that Putin cares about the 'law' - either national or international - is rather sweet and naive. As is your trust of Russian media.
So is it happening or not? Or do you just not know?
I can't be sure. Neither can you.
But there are lots of stories about people who should not be sent to the front being sent to the front. True, that might just be the awful western media compared to the truthful and utterly honest Russian media and Telegram channels...
Those meat waves are coming from somewhere; the third to half a million men killed or wounded.
Remember, Russia 'only' lost 15,000 men KIA, and double that injured, in nearly a decade in Afghanistan.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
If thats the advice she was given then why not provide that advice to settle the argument?
That's the question. But that isn't what the Daily Mail are going after.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
It is a tiny amount in the big scheme of things so I wonder if maybe there is some issue where she might have declared her address on her election documentation to the Electoral Commission as somewhere different to the tax authorities and so might be in trouble with the EC if the tax issue showed her address differently.
Not sure if it’s a biggy with the EC or what sanction there is for false declaration but it’s the only reason I can think she’s getting grumpy about the whole thing.
And she was v disingenuous on R4 the other day when she was asked why she didn’t just publish her tax advice on this matter and she demanded that if the PM and Chancellor showed their tax records for the last 15 years (weird dates for her to choose) then she would show her tax advice. Nick Robinson wasn’t sharp enough to nail her on this apples/oranges comparison/bargain.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
Also, whether Rayner is "guilty" or not, ignorance of the law is a legitimate defence when it comes to tax law.
I said that from the start. It’s an honest mistake that didn’t earn her much money anyway. The strangeness is her elaborately unlikely story, which makes no difference to the legality, and her supporters willingness to buy it
I am not lapping anything up.
I have given my view that I do not think she is liable to pay anything.
She has made it more difficult for herself in the way she has gone about it - she has made herself look silly.
She should have just published the advice she received at the start and left it at that.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
Yes, electrifying buses would have a bigger impact probably than ULEZ and would explain much of that 46%.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
It is a tiny amount in the big scheme of things so I wonder if maybe there is some issue where she might have declared her address on her election documentation to the Electoral Commission as somewhere different to the tax authorities and so might be in trouble with the EC if the tax issue showed her address differently.
Not sure if it’s a biggy with the EC or what sanction there is for false declaration but it’s the only reason I can think she’s getting grumpy about the whole thing.
And she was v disingenuous on R4 the other day when she was asked why she didn’t just publish her tax advice on this matter and she demanded that if the PM and Chancellor showed their tax records for the last 15 years (weird dates for her to choose) then she would show her tax advice. Nick Robinson wasn’t sharp enough to nail her on this apples/oranges comparison/bargain.
My view is that she's concluded (note: I am not saying I have concluded this) that giving it more air will invite more questions and she's been advised (I assume legally), to plead "no comment".
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
I was - I had 2013 Mondeo diesel for which I eventually took Mr Khan's £2k as I couldn't sell it for that, then subsequently bought a slightly newer but higher mileage car for £9k. Allowing for difference in condition I'm about £6k out of pocket.
Second hand cars have become really expensive (if they are ULEZ compliant) compared to a few years ago.
My window cleaner had to change his van. He is the only other person I know who was affected.
A good next step will be to phase out ice-cream vans that use an ICE to run their fridge, therefore keep their engine idling when stationary. I ran behind one the other day and the air was utterly filthy.
I talked to the owner of one by Hammersmith Bridge, last year. Apparently the owners/drivers have been requesting a plug in point at each pitch for a while.
They offered to pay a fee and suggested that the leccy could come from a green source only tariff.
The council said yes…
But apparently it fell into one of those procedural black holes where nothing can be done.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
It is a tiny amount in the big scheme of things so I wonder if maybe there is some issue where she might have declared her address on her election documentation to the Electoral Commission as somewhere different to the tax authorities and so might be in trouble with the EC if the tax issue showed her address differently.
Not sure if it’s a biggy with the EC or what sanction there is for false declaration but it’s the only reason I can think she’s getting grumpy about the whole thing.
And she was v disingenuous on R4 the other day when she was asked why she didn’t just publish her tax advice on this matter and she demanded that if the PM and Chancellor showed their tax records for the last 15 years (weird dates for her to choose) then she would show her tax advice. Nick Robinson wasn’t sharp enough to nail her on this apples/oranges comparison/bargain.
My view is that she's concluded (note: I am not saying I have concluded this) that giving it more air will invite more questions and she's been advised (I assume legally), to plead "no comment".
Yes this is what she has decided but there remain questions to be answered about what they did or didn't declare at the time and hence it is a legitimate pursuit of the press to ask what happened.
It looks for all the world like it was an "honest mistake" but it is legitimate to require that our legislators are transparent in their own tax affairs.
I would just comment that my son owned his own house but moved into his partners and subsequently had their children, got married, and had a third child 18 months ago
He rented his home when he moved in with his future wife and recently sold his home and has paid capital gains tax as required
The problem with the Rayner story is the lack of transparency over which home was her main residence and where she was registered to vote
As in all these controversies it is the lack of transparency that creates doubt and in her case she has demanded proof of tax from Sunak's wife and others and is now being accused of hypocrisy
Sky raised it with Starmer this morning and to quote their reporter he did nothing to close the story down and they expect it to continue to cause problems for the leadership
I would just say it was strange of Lammy to say on the media yesterday the PM should be held to higher standards than Rayner when in little over 6 months she could be the Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know how this is resolved but probably more beergate than full scale crisis for Rayner and labour
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
Yes, I think that's a fair summary.
(The Mail did try Councilhousegate I believe but it failed to roll off the tongue. The pithier Housegate just sounds like the gate to a house, so wouldn't have worked either)
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
Yes, electrifying buses would have a bigger impact probably than ULEZ and would explain much of that 46%.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
Because all the TfL buses have already been brought up to ULEZ standards, and have been for quite a while now;
Would also like to undermine Dan Hodge's albeit limited credibility further by saying, that he still has beergate pinned on his Twitter timeline, two years later.
There are questions for Rayner to answer - but the people asking them are out for blood.
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
I was - I had 2013 Mondeo diesel for which I eventually took Mr Khan's £2k as I couldn't sell it for that, then subsequently bought a slightly newer but higher mileage car for £9k. Allowing for difference in condition I'm about £6k out of pocket.
Second hand cars have become really expensive (if they are ULEZ compliant) compared to a few years ago.
My window cleaner had to change his van. He is the only other person I know who was affected.
A good next step will be to phase out ice-cream vans that use an ICE to run their fridge, therefore keep their engine idling when stationary. I ran behind one the other day and the air was utterly filthy.
I talked to the owner of one by Hammersmith Bridge, last year. Apparently the owners/drivers have been requesting a plug in point at each pitch for a while.
They offered to pay a fee and suggested that the leccy could come from a green source only tariff.
The council said yes…
But apparently it fell into one of those procedural black holes where nothing can be done.
A sad story of English bureaucracy. It doesn't surprise me that the sellers are themselves up for plug-in system. While out running, it struck me that the stink of their engines can't be good for business – the smell and oppressive thick air hardly inspires eating.
This, however, isn’t how the rules work. Married couples2 can only have one principal residence for CGT purposes. A married couple who own more than one home are free to choose which is their “principal residence” for CGT purposes by sending a nomination to HMRC within two years of the situation arising.
Who are living together – this is defined to basically mean “not separated”, so even if a married couple live separate lives in separate houses, they are probably “living together” for tax purposes
So I can only conclude Rayner has either not done this in which case she lied or she has done this but would prejudice herself in some other way. In the former case, again, ignorance of the law (which the article implies she was), is a defence. But in that case it's quite probable she doesn't owe anything anyway.
So my guess on the balance of probabilities is that the issue is not tax but of inviting questions about something else.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
Yes, I suppose ultimately to comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. Will probably be years if/when they do so.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
Would also like to undermine Dan Hodge's albeit limited credibility further by saying, that he still has beergate pinned on his Twitter timeline, two years later.
There are questions for Rayner to answer - but the people asking them are out for blood.
Re your last sentence that is politics, and as Sky said this morning as Labour get nearer power expect a lot more of these kind of stories
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
Yes, electrifying buses would have a bigger impact probably than ULEZ and would explain much of that 46%.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
Well my point was partly that buses are effectively owned by TfL which is itself effectively owned by the taxpayer, so to tax non-compliant buses would be a circular tax in which it would be taxing itself, thus disappearing in a puff of mathematical logic. In any case, both the bus and taxi network are being rapidly electrified/hybridised (due to heavy TfL investment in the case of buses) so they are also contributing much to the improvement in air quality.
It's true that reducing air pollution by 46% in just a few years isn't just because of the Ulez, it's one of many TfL policies that have helped achieve it.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
Presumably then it would be Gardengate.
It's more a case of garden path with Hodges, I think.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
46% reduction sounds fantastic to me
Indeed. I'm certain that if you'd offered Khan that when the scheme began he'd have bitten your hand off. But it's "very low" according to Bart, who presumably has achieved 75%+ in the same time with his ideas on the streets of Warrington.
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Ohio warns Democrats that Biden may miss deadline for November ballot
Democrats may miss a deadline to get President Biden on the general election ballot in Ohio, according to the state’s election management office.
In a letter seen by The Washington Post, the Ohio secretary of state’s office told Ohio Democratic Party Chair Liz Walters that the Democratic National Committee’s nominating convention is scheduled too late for Biden to make the Ohio ballot because a state law requires nominees to be certified at least 90 days before the general election.
The letter, citing Ohio’s presidential ballot laws, said the deadline to certify a presidential candidate in Ohio is 90 days before the general election. The election is Nov. 5 this year, putting the Ohio deadline at Aug. 7 – but the Democratic National Convention, which is expected to nominate Biden for a rematch against Donald Trump, isn’t scheduled to convene until Aug. 19. . . .
“We’re monitoring the situation in Ohio and we’re confident that Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states,” Josh Marcus-Blank, a Biden-Harris 2024 campaign spokesperson, told The Post in an email.
[The Ohio secretary of state's] office suggested that either the Democratic National Committee move up its nominating convention to meet the Aug. 7 deadline or that the Ohio General Assembly create an exception to the law for the Democrats’ nominee. . . .
This isn’t the first time Ohio’s law has created scheduling conflicts. In 2020, the Democratic and Republican parties scheduled their conventions for after Ohio’s deadline. Knowing this, state lawmakers made a one-time change to reduce the deadline from 90 days before the election to 60 [days] . . . .
SSI - As a West Virginia, am NOT at all surprised that Ohio has such an obviously idiotic law.
FYI (also BTW) in WVa, a "Buckeye" is traditionally defined as "a worthless nut".
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
Raynergate might be ok as long as she doesn't do anything else gateworthy.
As a married couple each of whom own a property prior to and when they get married a nomination has to be made to HMRC as to where your primary residence is for tax purposes (this doesn't have to be the one you live in). This doesn't appear to be a well known requirement.
In short there seem to be three options wrt AR.
1. They made the nomination that her house was their main residence - no CGT to pay for her on that house on disposal. 2. They made the nomination that her husband's house was their main residence - potential CGT liability of £1.5k on her house on disposal (perhaps less subject to improvements made on the house) 3. They didn't make a nomination - same as No.2.
Any and all of these would be wholly understandable but she is not saying which of the three it is. I think she should.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
Yes, I suppose ultimately to comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. Will probably be years if/when they do so.
I doubt it as Rayner is currently under both a police investigation and from the local authority about her place of registration for voting purposes, and due to media pressure I would expect some responses in the next few months either to exonerate her or some other more serious course if action
Certainly labour will not want this dragging on as labour spokespersons get continually quizzed on it by the media
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
Yes, electrifying buses would have a bigger impact probably than ULEZ and would explain much of that 46%.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
Because all the TfL buses have already been brought up to ULEZ standards, and have been for quite a while now;
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
Presumably then it would be Gardengate.
And if the house was in W11 then it would be Notting Hill Gate.
As a married couple each of whom own a property prior to and when they get married a nomination has to be made to HMRC as to where your primary residence is for tax purposes (this doesn't have to be the one you live in). This doesn't appear to be a well known requirement.
In short there seem to be three options wrt AR.
1. They made the nomination that her house was their main residence - no CGT to pay for her on that house on disposal. 2. They made the nomination that her husband's house was their main residence - potential CGT liability of £1.5k on her house on disposal (perhaps less subject to improvements made on the house) 3. They didn't make a nomination - same as No.2.
Any and all of these would be wholly understandable but she is not saying which of the three it is. I think she should.
I would just comment that my son owned his own house but moved into his partners and subsequently had their children, got married, and had a third child 18 months ago
He rented his home when he moved in with his future wife and recently sold his home and has paid capital gains tax as required
The problem with the Rayner story is the lack of transparency over which home was her main residence and where she was registered to vote
As in all these controversies it is the lack of transparency that creates doubt and in her case she has demanded proof of tax from Sunak's wife and others and is now being accused of hypocrisy
Sky raised it with Starmer this morning and to quote their reporter he did nothing to close the story down and they expect it to continue to cause problems for the leadership
I would just say it was strange of Lammy to say on the media yesterday the PM should be held to higher standards than Rayner when in little over 6 months she could be the Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know how this is resolved but probably more beergate than full scale crisis for Rayner and labour
Is "beergate" a new political suffix for a particularly weak scandal ramped by a partisan media?
As a married couple each of whom own a property prior to and when they get married a nomination has to be made to HMRC as to where your primary residence is for tax purposes (this doesn't have to be the one you live in). This doesn't appear to be a well known requirement.
In short there seem to be three options wrt AR.
1. They made the nomination that her house was their main residence - no CGT to pay for her on that house on disposal. 2. They made the nomination that her husband's house was their main residence - potential CGT liability of £1.5k (perhaps less subject to improvements made on the house) 3. They didn't make a nomination - same as No.2.
Any and all of these would be wholly understandable but she is not saying which of the three it is. I think she should.
I agree with you.
Her statements imply she did number one, at least that is how I read them.
So, I think there is no money owed (which is what the Daily Mail seem to be angry about) but she would prejudice herself some other way, which she's been advised not to do.
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
Yes, I suppose ultimately to comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. Will probably be years if/when they do so.
I doubt it as Rayner is currently under both a police investigation and from the local authority about her place of registration for voting purposes, and due to media pressure I would expect some responses in the next few months either to exonerate her or some other more serious course if action
Certainly labour will not want this dragging on as labour spokespersons get continually quizzed on it by the media
Let's hope they haven't handed it over to Police Scotland then.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
This is the crux of it; it's a really boring and complicated situation that involves a laughably small amount of money so the story is struggling to find purchase outside the perma-outraged gammon community.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
'Housegate' sounds naff, and it may not have a garden.
Presumably then it would be Gardengate.
And if the house was in W11 then it would be Notting Hill Gate.
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
46% is very low, all things considered, targeting vehicles that emit more all day long rather than exempting them from the scheme would do more.
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Almost half is "very low".
Only on PB.
Less than half is very low all things considered, yes.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
Would such vehicles include London buses, which are effectively owned by taxpayers, and are electrifying/hybridising at a rapid rate?
Yes, electrifying buses would have a bigger impact probably than ULEZ and would explain much of that 46%.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
Because all the TfL buses have already been brought up to ULEZ standards, and have been for quite a while now;
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
If thats the advice she was given then why not provide that advice to settle the argument?
For someone who has made a career out of demanding transparency from politicians on the other side she is not very keen on transparency when applied to her.
What is the basis for CrapGTP (sp)? Reportedly, massive (alleged) theft of intellectual property from a (ostensibly) trusted source . . . YouTube!
New York Times - How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.
OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems.
In late 2021, OpenAI faced a supply problem.
The artificial intelligence lab had exhausted every reservoir of reputable English-language text on the internet as it developed its latest A.I. system. It needed more data to train the next version of its technology — lots more.
So OpenAI researchers created a speech recognition tool called Whisper. It could transcribe the audio from YouTube videos, yielding new conversational text that would make an A.I. system smarter.
Some OpenAI employees discussed how such a move might go against YouTube’s rules, three people with knowledge of the conversations said. YouTube, which is owned by Google, prohibits use of its videos for applications that are “independent” of the video platform.
Ultimately, an OpenAI team transcribed more than one million hours of YouTube videos, the people said. The team included Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, who personally helped collect the videos, two of the people said. The texts were then fed into a system called GPT-4, which was widely considered one of the world’s most powerful A.I. models and was the basis of the latest version of the ChatGPT chatbot. . . .
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
Yes, I suppose ultimately to comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. Will probably be years if/when they do so.
I doubt it as Rayner is currently under both a police investigation and from the local authority about her place of registration for voting purposes, and due to media pressure I would expect some responses in the next few months either to exonerate her or some other more serious course if action
Certainly labour will not want this dragging on as labour spokespersons get continually quizzed on it by the media
Rayner isn't under police investigation, they looked into her case and decided there wasn't anything to investigate. Subtle but important difference.
As far as I can see, the crux of the Rayner Affair is that one's primary home as considered by HMRC for tax purposes is not always the same thing as the home in which one mostly resides. When couple decide to cohabit, one's tax home can end up being a different address to one's actual home.
I think.
If thats the advice she was given then why not provide that advice to settle the argument?
For someone who has made a career out of demanding transparency from politicians on the other side she is not very keen on transparency when applied to her.
Rayner isn't under police investigation, they looked into her case and decided there wasn't anything to investigate. Subtle but important difference.
That decision has been challenged however.
I am not sure how it works in practice but would HMRC in this case not just send you a letter saying you owed the tax and you'd pay it? I don't think the Police would even be involved in something like this.
To be honest, we don't know if they did this already - and I assume they and her are under no obligation to release those details?
Would also like to undermine Dan Hodge's albeit limited credibility further by saying, that he still has beergate pinned on his Twitter timeline, two years later.
There are questions for Rayner to answer - but the people asking them are out for blood.
Well that is just politics. Of course a political scalp is a feather in the cap for any hack. They were after blood on partygate, they were after blood on Beergate and they will be after blood on future issues too.
It is just the nature of the game and Rayner is very adept at joining in the calls for blood too.
She is getting some back now. It will only be worse in office. She is not keen on scrutiny now. Heaven help her when is a minister.
If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.
I expect the word corruption will feature in the election in Scotland and as many words as you like to describe an out of touch self seeking bunch of idiots as you like.
What , crap as they are the corruption is in Westminster where the pig troughs are deep and wide. It is like an open prison for frauds and grifters.
Good morning Malc. Have you planted your turnips yet? You only have till April 15th for an early crop...
There has been a lot of corruption in Scotland. We await to see if the Police charge anyone and if so how many feel.the bracelets.
Corruption is endemic in Westminster so its not really news. .. People just sigh.
As Robin Mcalpine pointed out in a recent article, corruption is not confined to just the criminal acts. Setting up or largely funding think tanks and campaigning groups which then initiate and promote what becomes government policy, staffed by party activists or revolving door ex-politicos is even more debilitating.
The lobbying scandal never really went away but now you have the govt effectively lobbying itself through sock puppet groups.
However this is seen as less of an issue as these groups are seen as benign and benevolent as opposed to another arm of the state.
As I said at the start of this; forget the tax, the weird thing is that her supporters are pretending to believe that newlyweds with children didn’t live together.
It’s the kind of thing you’d only choose to believe if you were extremely sympathetic to the person beforehand
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
(Snip)
Which would be an excellent argument, if the Russian media were in any way free and/or trustworthy. Instead, they just send people to the front, and occasionally point at one case and say: "oopsie, that was a mistake, we won't do it again, honest guv. You can trust us!" And then send more.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
My Russian mole says things are as bad media-wise on both sides. Here, everyone seems convinced Moscow is a poverty-stricken ghetto patrolled by Putin's secret police, whereas thanks to widespread sanctions-busting life continues pretty much as normal away from the front, and normal Russians fear their compatriots in the West are liable to be attacked in the street if their accent slips.
I'm not Bart, but it's a different context, so it can't possibly be the gotcha you want it to be.
And certainly some people might argue it was very low compared to what was possible and desirable.
Yes, it works both ways. When a policy intervention like ULEZ does not bring about the intended results, opponents: "aha! It does not work" while supporters: "We need to go further!".
We can expect this kind of discourse again with the Rwanda flights, if they ever happen.
Rayner isn't under police investigation, they looked into her case and decided there wasn't anything to investigate. Subtle but important difference.
That decision has been challenged however.
I am not sure how it works in practice but would HMRC in this case not just send you a letter saying you owed the tax and you'd pay it? I don't think the Police would even be involved in something like this.
To be honest, we don't know if they did this already - and I assume they and her are under no obligation to release those details?
It's been a while since I worked in the tax office, but most tax is now self-assessment, which means you have a duty to inform the tax office if you believe you have underpaid tax.
It also means that the tax office would have to open a formal investigation to look into your tax affairs, and that's a ballache of paperwork, so they'd be loathe to do that unless the potential tax liability assisting would be worse the bother.
Since there have been cuts in the number of tax inspectors, they wouldn't want to be wasting their time over a piddling little CGT charge of £1,500 because they would hope to spend their time on larger amounts of unpaid tax.
So I don't think you can take the absence of a letter from HMRC demanding unpaid tax as evidence that there isn't unpaid tax to pay.
Rayner isn't under police investigation, they looked into her case and decided there wasn't anything to investigate. Subtle but important difference.
That decision has been challenged however.
I am not sure how it works in practice but would HMRC in this case not just send you a letter saying you owed the tax* and you'd pay it? I don't think the Police would even be involved in something like this.
To be honest, we don't know if they did this already - and I assume they and her are under no obligation to release those details?
As I said at the start of this; forget the tax, the weird thing is that her supporters are pretending to believe that newlyweds with children didn’t live together.
It’s the kind of thing you’d only choose to believe if you were extremely sympathetic to the person beforehand
Just got back from work (to somewhere I don’t live)and within 5 mins my cats (who live at this house that I don’t) are on my knee. I think I've been missed #feelingloved
Someone here posted a good explanation of the Rayner situation and IIRC (I probably don't) it comes down to whether they nominated at the time their main residence for tax purposes.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
She’s making things worse for herself by doubling down and thereby looking shifty, especially given the tiny amounts at stake.
What has Rayner said about her tax affairs? AFAIK only that she's been advised she has no tax to pay. Let's consider the possibilities:
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay. 2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it 3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
Yes, I suppose ultimately to comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. Will probably be years if/when they do so.
I doubt it as Rayner is currently under both a police investigation and from the local authority about her place of registration for voting purposes, and due to media pressure I would expect some responses in the next few months either to exonerate her or some other more serious course if action
Certainly labour will not want this dragging on as labour spokespersons get continually quizzed on it by the media
Rayner isn't under police investigation, they looked into her case and decided there wasn't anything to investigate. Subtle but important difference.
That decision has been challenged however.
The police have confirmed they are reassessing their decision so either way they will have to announce that decision
Comments
At this point either HMRC will claim the tax and she pays it, or they don't and she doesn't. Speculation she lied to HMRC about her status seems baseless.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology
Especially considering natural churn causes emissions to fall over time with or without ULEZ.
Those meat waves are people, and they're not all criminals.
You castigate people on here for reading too much into western media on Ukraine. You have a point. However, the same applies the other way much more: believing the Russian media (or even Telegram) is a recipe to just receive the Kremlin's agitprop.
Massive arbitrage opportunity for electricity storage.
Second hand cars have become really expensive (if they are ULEZ compliant) compared to a few years ago.
My window cleaner had to change his van. He is the only other person I know who was affected.
And one wonders who proposed him?
They are not that competent.
Clean, green transport which ought to be very cheap too.
The question is what happens when they eventually run out of non-conscripts. And when that will be.
Only on PB.
So online India is four square behind its leader? Or the BJP’s online propaganda machine showing just how powerful it is? By sheer force of numbers Indian government Twitter has inveigled its way into - and propagated its chosen positions on - Ukraine, Gaza, Indian domestic politics of course, and all things related to its geopolitical interests. Thankfully Modi doesn’t seem yet to have turned his troll farms on to UK or US politics but give it time.
If they did then a), and if they didn't then b). Where a) and b) mean they should have declared it and hence avoided tax; and they did declare it and didn't need to pay the tax, or somesuch but AIUI Rayner is not saying whether they did or didn't which would clear the whole matter up. And that is the issue.
If she says I can't remember whether we made the declaration but it is likely I did/didn't, or I didn't declare it but should have I was newly married what the hell and therefore made an honest mistake then all well and good.
But she is not doing this.
If I had the I-don't-give-a-shit-what-you-think energy of our DuraAce I'd be spilling red wine onto, and treading mud into, any white carpet I came across on principle.
Natural churn would have caused emissions to fall even without any action taken whatsoever. National (and international) standards improving means as vehicles are replaced naturally then the emissions are falling anyway.
GM dropped its charging plan after realising it would not work as it would not lower emissions fast enough and far enough. Instead concentrating on the vehicles that are causing the majority of the emissions, rather than exempting them, results in a bigger improvement.
There is no environmental reason to exempt vehicles from regulations which are driving around all day every day, quite the opposite!
If you could achieve a cut of three-quarters with more targeted action, than a cut of almost half with a broad brush approach is very low.
If air pollution measurement levels are relevant in terms of orders of magnitude, than a cut of almost half could be very low relative to the cuts required.
PUTTING WINDOW CLEANERS OUT OF WORK!!!
The Soviets used to do that a lot.
This is why a free media is so important, for all the problems that can cause.
I think.
Trump says abortion is up to the states, declines to endorse national limit
His announcement is likely to disappoint anti-abortion groups after his campaign floated a 15-week ban earlier this year.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/08/trump-says-abortion-is-up-to-the-states-declines-to-endorse-national-limit-00151022
All he has to do is Hindu Nationalism and his base will lap it up - even if he kills the planet in the process.
But there are lots of stories about people who should not be sent to the front being sent to the front. True, that might just be the awful western media compared to the truthful and utterly honest Russian media and Telegram channels...
Those meat waves are coming from somewhere; the third to half a million men killed or wounded.
Remember, Russia 'only' lost 15,000 men KIA, and double that injured, in nearly a decade in Afghanistan.
Not sure if it’s a biggy with the EC or what sanction there is for false declaration but it’s the only reason I can think she’s getting grumpy about the whole thing.
And she was v disingenuous on R4 the other day when she was asked why she didn’t just publish her tax advice on this matter and she demanded that if the PM and Chancellor showed their tax records for the last 15 years (weird dates for her to choose) then she would show her tax advice. Nick Robinson wasn’t sharp enough to nail her on this apples/oranges comparison/bargain.
However, her handling of it has been abysmal and she would probably have to go for it in normal circumstances. These are not normal circumstances however because a door falls off Rishi's clown car every week providing a distraction and denying the Rayner story momentum. It hasn't even got a -gate suffix for fuck's sake.
I have given my view that I do not think she is liable to pay anything.
She has made it more difficult for herself in the way she has gone about it - she has made herself look silly.
She should have just published the advice she received at the start and left it at that.
As would electrifying taxis, private hire etc too.
Instead for some reason they're exempt from ULEZ rather than targeted. There's no environmental reason to do that, if you cared about the environment you'd do the opposite.
They offered to pay a fee and suggested that the leccy could come from a green source only tariff.
The council said yes…
But apparently it fell into one of those procedural black holes where nothing can be done.
1. She's right, HMRC doesn't claim the tax so there's none to pay.
2. The advice is wrong, HMRC does claim the tax and she pays it
3. She lied about something to the HMRC. While possible there's not a shred of evidence to support this
So it comes down to whether HMRC claim the tax. It's up to them, not Rayner, whether they do or not, it doesn't matter too much either way and presumably it will be a while before Rayner knows which way this will go.
It looks for all the world like it was an "honest mistake" but it is legitimate to require that our legislators are transparent in their own tax affairs.
He rented his home when he moved in with his future wife and recently sold his home and has paid capital gains tax as required
The problem with the Rayner story is the lack of transparency over which home was her main residence and where she was registered to vote
As in all these controversies it is the lack of transparency that creates doubt and in her case she has demanded proof of tax from Sunak's wife and others and is now being accused of hypocrisy
Sky raised it with Starmer this morning and to quote their reporter he did nothing to close the story down and they expect it to continue to cause problems for the leadership
I would just say it was strange of Lammy to say on the media yesterday the PM should be held to higher standards than Rayner when in little over 6 months she could be the Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know how this is resolved but probably more beergate than full scale crisis for Rayner and labour
(The Mail did try Councilhousegate I believe but it failed to roll off the tongue. The pithier Housegate just sounds like the gate to a house, so wouldn't have worked either)
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-unmaking-of-the-athenaeum/
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/january/london-s-buses-now-meet-ulez-emissions-standards-across-the-entire-city
There are questions for Rayner to answer - but the people asking them are out for blood.
I can tell you, that ULEZ has not come up once in any conversation I have had in the last six months, except with people outside of London.
So I can only conclude Rayner has either not done this in which case she lied or she has done this but would prejudice herself in some other way. In the former case, again, ignorance of the law (which the article implies she was), is a defence. But in that case it's quite probable she doesn't owe anything anyway.
So my guess on the balance of probabilities is that the issue is not tax but of inviting questions about something else.
It's true that reducing air pollution by 46% in just a few years isn't just because of the Ulez, it's one of many TfL policies that have helped achieve it.
More to do!
Democrats may miss a deadline to get President Biden on the general election ballot in Ohio, according to the state’s election management office.
In a letter seen by The Washington Post, the Ohio secretary of state’s office told Ohio Democratic Party Chair Liz Walters that the Democratic National Committee’s nominating convention is scheduled too late for Biden to make the Ohio ballot because a state law requires nominees to be certified at least 90 days before the general election.
The letter, citing Ohio’s presidential ballot laws, said the deadline to certify a presidential candidate in Ohio is 90 days before the general election. The election is Nov. 5 this year, putting the Ohio deadline at Aug. 7 – but the Democratic National Convention, which is expected to nominate Biden for a rematch against Donald Trump, isn’t scheduled to convene until Aug. 19. . . .
“We’re monitoring the situation in Ohio and we’re confident that Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states,” Josh Marcus-Blank, a Biden-Harris 2024 campaign spokesperson, told The Post in an email.
[The Ohio secretary of state's] office suggested that either the Democratic National Committee move up its nominating convention to meet the Aug. 7 deadline or that the Ohio General Assembly create an exception to the law for the Democrats’ nominee. . . .
This isn’t the first time Ohio’s law has created scheduling conflicts. In 2020, the Democratic and Republican parties scheduled their conventions for after Ohio’s deadline. Knowing this, state lawmakers made a one-time change to reduce the deadline from 90 days before the election to 60 [days] . . . .
SSI - As a West Virginia, am NOT at all surprised that Ohio has such an obviously idiotic law.
FYI (also BTW) in WVa, a "Buckeye" is traditionally defined as "a worthless nut".
A poor substitute, but desperate times given record immigration has happened under Sunak's watch.
www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/29/rayner/
As a married couple each of whom own a property prior to and when they get married a nomination has to be made to HMRC as to where your primary residence is for tax purposes (this doesn't have to be the one you live in). This doesn't appear to be a well known requirement.
In short there seem to be three options wrt AR.
1. They made the nomination that her house was their main residence - no CGT to pay for her on that house on disposal.
2. They made the nomination that her husband's house was their main residence - potential CGT liability of £1.5k on her house on disposal (perhaps less subject to improvements made on the house)
3. They didn't make a nomination - same as No.2.
Any and all of these would be wholly understandable but she is not saying which of the three it is. I think she should.
Certainly labour will not want this dragging on as labour spokespersons get continually quizzed on it by the media
"Expensesbeergate". "Pigsheadbeergate". etc
Her statements imply she did number one, at least that is how I read them.
So, I think there is no money owed (which is what the Daily Mail seem to be angry about) but she would prejudice herself some other way, which she's been advised not to do.
New York Times - How Tech Giants Cut Corners to Harvest Data for A.I.
OpenAI, Google and Meta ignored corporate policies, altered their own rules and discussed skirting copyright law as they sought online information to train their newest artificial intelligence systems.
In late 2021, OpenAI faced a supply problem.
The artificial intelligence lab had exhausted every reservoir of reputable English-language text on the internet as it developed its latest A.I. system. It needed more data to train the next version of its technology — lots more.
So OpenAI researchers created a speech recognition tool called Whisper. It could transcribe the audio from YouTube videos, yielding new conversational text that would make an A.I. system smarter.
Some OpenAI employees discussed how such a move might go against YouTube’s rules, three people with knowledge of the conversations said. YouTube, which is owned by Google, prohibits use of its videos for applications that are “independent” of the video platform.
Ultimately, an OpenAI team transcribed more than one million hours of YouTube videos, the people said. The team included Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, who personally helped collect the videos, two of the people said. The texts were then fed into a system called GPT-4, which was widely considered one of the world’s most powerful A.I. models and was the basis of the latest version of the ChatGPT chatbot. . . .
That decision has been challenged however.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-first-major-economy-to-halve-emissions#:~:text=The UK is the first,USA between 1990 and 2021.
To be honest, we don't know if they did this already - and I assume they and her are under no obligation to release those details?
It is just the nature of the game and Rayner is very adept at joining in the calls for blood too.
She is getting some back now. It will only be worse in office. She is not keen on scrutiny now. Heaven help her when is a minister.
However this is seen as less of an issue as these groups are seen as benign and benevolent as opposed to another arm of the state.
It’s the kind of thing you’d only choose to believe if you were extremely sympathetic to the person beforehand
And certainly some people might argue it was very low compared to what was possible and desirable.
We can expect this kind of discourse again with the Rwanda flights, if they ever happen.
It also means that the tax office would have to open a formal investigation to look into your tax affairs, and that's a ballache of paperwork, so they'd be loathe to do that unless the potential tax liability assisting would be worse the bother.
Since there have been cuts in the number of tax inspectors, they wouldn't want to be wasting their time over a piddling little CGT charge of £1,500 because they would hope to spend their time on larger amounts of unpaid tax.
So I don't think you can take the absence of a letter from HMRC demanding unpaid tax as evidence that there isn't unpaid tax to pay.
https://x.com/angelarayner/status/446752993053278210?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q