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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
. . . from (yet another) GOP State of Incompetence . . .
Seattle Times - GOP candidates battle for endorsement in WA governor race
Next week, thousands of Republicans will gather at the Spokane Convention Center to decide which candidates to endorse for the 2024 election, including for governor. . . .
Dave Reichert, the former congressman and King County sheriff, has raised more than $2 million, and early polls suggest he’d be competitive in a November gubernatorial matchup with Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the leading Democrat.
But a substantial number of GOP activists are pushing to endorse Semi Bird, a military veteran and former Richland School Board member who was recalled by voters there last summer for his vote to defy Washington’s indoor mask mandate at the time. While he’s raised just $420,000, he has attracted grassroots support and racked up endorsements from 16 county party organizations. . . .
Bird is unabashed in his support for Donald Trump, saying he voted for the presumptive GOP nominee in the state’s recent presidential primary. Reichert declined to endorse Trump as a congressman and won’t say whether he supports him this year. . . .
The early endorsement process — a new experiment for the state GOP — was created in a bid for unity. The idea was to avoid a repeat of past elections in which too many Republican candidates in some races split the vote in the state’s top-two primary, allowing only Democrats to advance to the general election.
This year, the party has asked candidates to sign a pledge to abide by the convention endorsement outcome, with the losers dropping out and endorsing the winner. Bird signed the pledge; Reichert, as of last week, had not . . . .
Bird supporters have attacked Reichert as a “RINO,” Republican In Name Only, pointing to [his] votes in Congress . . . .
Reichert’s backers warn choosing Bird would amount to a political death wish in Washington, where the GOP hasn’t won a governor’s race since 1980 and is currently shut out of every statewide office. . . .
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.
Thanks. But would I be right to say that if Rayner had concluded there is no tax to pay and had filed as such but HMRC disagreed and had opened an investigation and concluded she was correct, they would be under no obligation to confirm either way?
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
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.
Is the figure controlled for the fact that it has been wet and windy since ULEZ was brought in?
In fact, how do we know that the change in weather wasn't caused by ULEZ?
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
Yes but again, this is irrelevant to primary residence as far as capital gains is concerned, which is the whole argument in the first place.
If the argument was more about "what is a primary residence and why are the rules silly" then it would have more purchase but the Daily Mail are saying that statements somebody makes impact how their taxes are paid which they don't.
For example, as far as I understand it you can live away from your only owned home for many years (forever?) and you can still be exempt from capital gains tax.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
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.
Thanks. But would I be right to say that if Rayner had concluded there is no tax to pay and had filed as such but HMRC disagreed and had opened an investigation and concluded she was correct, they would be under no obligation to confirm either way?
So basically, it's unprovable?
I think we want more from our politicians than "you can't prove anything".
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
Yes. But that isn't an argument against ULEZ, that's an argument against a certain implementation.
I'd have exempted nobody from it and provided more support to people that needed it to get compliant vehicles. But the policy itself is sound to me.
I'd stick a massive tax on high polluting vehicles and large vehicles as an additional step. If I made the rules, cars would be required to pay a massive tax to get into Central London.
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.
Thanks. But would I be right to say that if Rayner had concluded there is no tax to pay and had filed as such but HMRC disagreed and had opened an investigation and concluded she was correct, they would be under no obligation to confirm either way?
So basically, it's unprovable?
It would be illegal for HMRC to comment publicly on a private individual's tax affairs, unless those tax affairs were the subject of a court case, and so entered the public domain.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
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.
Thanks. But would I be right to say that if Rayner had concluded there is no tax to pay and had filed as such but HMRC disagreed and had opened an investigation and concluded she was correct, they would be under no obligation to confirm either way?
So basically, it's unprovable?
I think we want more from our politicians than "you can't prove anything".
I have already said, she's been very silly and made herself look guilty.
But I was asking on a legal basis, that as far as I can see there is no actual evidence she has done anything wrong.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
Current zones are absurd, because one person crossing a corner of the zone for a minute pays the same as a delivery driver that spends the whole day in it, leaving his engine idling while he jumps out to deliver an Amazon parcel.
I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also think Norway has done this right. Rather than trying to make ICEs more expensive, make electric cars cheaper. Mandate that any new supermarket has 30 new EV charging stalls, for example: it costs almost nothing when you're building a new development to do that, and it makes EVs that much more attractive.
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.
Thanks. But would I be right to say that if Rayner had concluded there is no tax to pay and had filed as such but HMRC disagreed and had opened an investigation and concluded she was correct, they would be under no obligation to confirm either way?
So basically, it's unprovable?
I think we want more from our politicians than "you can't prove anything".
Plenty of Tory politicos, from Boris Johnson on down (or is it up?) would be ecstatic, IF only THEY could make that claim with a semi-straight face . . .
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
Current zones are absurd, because one person crossing a corner of the zone for a minute pays the same as a delivery driver that spends the whole day in it, leaving his engine idling while he jumps out to deliver an Amazon parcel.
I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also think Norway has done this right. Rather than trying to make ICEs more expensive, make electric cars cheaper. Mandate that any new supermarket has 30 new EV charging stalls, for example: it costs almost nothing when you're building a new development to do that, and it makes EVs that much more attractive.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
London taxis have to be at least hybrids now. The old diesel cabs have been phased out.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
London taxis have to be at least hybrids now. The old diesel cabs have been phased out.
Newly licensed ones, AFAIK upto 12 year old licensed ones are still on the road and exempt from the charge despite the fact they can be driving around all day every day.
Ditto for private hire vehicles which are also exempt AFAIK if wheelchair accessible.
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
Yes but again, this is irrelevant to primary residence as far as capital gains is concerned, which is the whole argument in the first place.
If the argument was more about "what is a primary residence and why are the rules silly" then it would have more purchase but the Daily Mail are saying that statements somebody makes impact how their taxes are paid which they don't.
For example, as far as I understand it you can live away from your only owned home for many years (forever?) and you can still be exempt from capital gains tax.
Forget the DM, Dan Neidle is the one saying that the couples main residence was her husband’s, and she is probably liable for tax
But I don’t care about that anyway, the strange thing is - why is she pretending not to have lived at her husbands house with him and her children and cats? Let’s pretend there’s no tax issue. All the neighbours say she lived there, there are pictures of her with her cats there with her saying she just got back from work, her kids lived there, it is implausible that she didn’t - why lie?
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
Current zones are absurd, because one person crossing a corner of the zone for a minute pays the same as a delivery driver that spends the whole day in it, leaving his engine idling while he jumps out to deliver an Amazon parcel.
I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also think Norway has done this right. Rather than trying to make ICEs more expensive, make electric cars cheaper. Mandate that any new supermarket has 30 new EV charging stalls, for example: it costs almost nothing when you're building a new development to do that, and it makes EVs that much more attractive.
Something that we can positively borrow from America - no subsidies/planning benefits for charging points that don’t demonstrate up time.
They changed the subsidy rules to this, in the US, last year.
Outside the Tesla network, the number of broken chargers is ridiculous.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
I think ULEZ is a good policy. I am not a climate loon.
What do you think about what Greater Manchester has done, dropping their charge zone and getting a bigger drop in emissions by going for high polluting vehicles instead?
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
London taxis have to be at least hybrids now. The old diesel cabs have been phased out.
Newly licensed ones, AFAIK upto 12 year old licensed ones are still on the road and exempt from the charge despite the fact they can be driving around all day every day.
Ditto for private hire vehicles which are also exempt AFAIK if wheelchair accessible.
I've not seen a diesel cab in years. There might be some left but a lot were disposed of during the pandemic because most are leased rather than driver-owned.
Elon Musk has been lying about electric cars every year since 2012. I am an advocate of electric cars but he is not the person nor company I would use.
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.
Your avatar suggests it would have to be a very brief podcast anyway.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
Musk didn't create Tesla. He has been responsible for much of its success. But he was not a founder.
But I don’t care about that anyway, the strange thing is - why is she pretending not to have lived at her husbands house with him and her children and cats? Let’s pretend there’s no tax issue. All the neighbours say she lived there, there are pictures of her with her cats there with her saying she just got back from work, her kids lived there, it is implausible that she didn’t - why lie?
The "lying" is the legitimate point - which I agree with you on. But again these statements are not contradictory (necessarily) to the perspective of CGT (as far as I understand). But the Daily Mail and others are claiming she owes tax which she probably doesn't.
So it's lying that is the issue - and that is what the Daily Mail should be going after as it shows hypocrisy.
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.
To be fair, 46% may look low compared to the % reduction in Conservative MPs after the next election
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
It was 2006 when Musk did “The Secret Masterplan” blogpost about leveraging larger volumes of successively cheaper cars to bootstrap Tesla to being a major car company.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
I sometimes wonder if JSO/Thunberg are funded by Tesla just to keep things moving in the right direction.
I love this though. A furious scrap between the right and left over their green credentials, when we all know deep down it was Ed Davey who saved us.
And we are finally onto the hard stuff - road transport and gas boilers. What fantastic progress.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
Musk didn't create Tesla. He has been responsible for much of its success. But he was not a founder.
That's just another of his many lies...
Well indeed, though Musk did help make it what it is today, if you want to look even further back that just adds to my point.
Tesla was founded in the same year Thunberg was born, so if she was responsible for it then that's seriously impressive.
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’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
One of the things we discussed here the other week was the number of older people who have lost partners through divorce or death who find another partner but each keeps their own house as a bolt hole and protection against it going pear shaped. I have several friends in this position.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
That’s nothing like Rayner and her husband getting married and never living together though. The fact people are trying to pretend this is anything like a normal set up is ludicrous, and when you factor in that it works to claim it retrospectively so it doesn’t look like she was dodging tax, you’d have to be the most gullible of fools to believe it. But people are choosing to. Would they if a Tory or Nigel Farage claimed it? I doubt it very much.
Imagine if Boris didn’t live with Carrie and the kids!
I wasn't suggesting it was @isam . I was just chewing the fat, because it was an interesting topic (non political) that we discussed a few weeks ago and I thought it worth mentioning.
Much of what I post is non political and quite frankly mindless drivel from my random thought processes.
But I don’t care about that anyway, the strange thing is - why is she pretending not to have lived at her husbands house with him and her children and cats? Let’s pretend there’s no tax issue. All the neighbours say she lived there, there are pictures of her with her cats there with her saying she just got back from work, her kids lived there, it is implausible that she didn’t - why lie?
The "lying" is the legitimate point - which I agree with you on. But again these statements are not contradictory (necessarily) to the perspective of CGT (as far as I understand). But the Daily Mail and others are claiming she owes tax which she probably doesn't.
So it's lying that is the issue - and that is what the Daily Mail should be going after as it shows hypocrisy.
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I suppose the counter-argument is that the only reason we have taken such measures is because climate activists have kicked up a fuss.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Because the technology hasn't existed to wipe out ICE in one step. It still isn't there yet.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
Musk didn't create Tesla. He has been responsible for much of its success. But he was not a founder.
That's just another of his many lies...
Well indeed, though Musk did help make it what it is today, if you want to look even further back that just adds to my point.
Tesla was founded in the same year Thunberg was born, so if she was responsible for it then that's seriously impressive.
Thunberg has saved the world. But the main story is true - Tesla's genius/luck was to take advantage of a market disrupted by climate change policy.
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.
As always its the hypocrisy, not the 'crime'. Labour have always used the idea that they are not like the Tories. They care more, they are honest etc. This is just one (potential) story, but you don't want too many. I suspect its that she has been caught out (potentially inadvertently) and hates that, and has just bristled up in response, rather then fess up. She is. after all, a rather spiky character (and all the better for 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".
Coroners are being actively solicited to identity air pollution as a cause of death. That is an Orwellian distortion of the facts to suit a policy push - you couldn't get much more confected.
The econonomical damage of imposing a massive tax on the freedom to travel and make money should not really need explaining. The damage that Just Stop Oil's disruptions do to the economy is not disputed, so why would a lower level but permanent disruption be less damaging? The economy is failing to grow because of the salami slicing effect all the taxes, regulations and responsibilities imposed on businesses over decades that were justified on there being 'no evidence' that they would damage the economy. Yet we are where we are.
The placement of the Ulez boundaries is abritrary - that is thoughtless. It affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately - that is selfish.
What's your evidence that coroners are being asked to do anything inappropriate? The evidence for the impact of air pollution on mortality was not based on coroners identifying air pollution as a cause of death anyway.
ULEZ does not represent a "massive tax on the freedom to travel". It is a relatively modest scheme that doesn't affect most people. The UK is currently in a recession: I don't believe it's because of ULEZ! You haven't presented any evidence for damage to the economy. If the effect is so obvious, it should be easy to show it.
With a scheme like this, there will always be a degree of arbitrariness with the borders. That is unavoidable. How does that show thoughtlessness? There was lengthy discussion and consultation.
Something that "affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately" could be called a regressive tax, as Bart said above. How does it demonstrate selfishness? How does ULEZ primarily personally benefit those who introduced it? The idea began with Boris Johnson: how does Boris benefit personally from ULEZ?
The indirect benefit is to the coffers of TFL. I never mentioned a personal benefit.
Ulez will net £300mn in its first year apparently. I'm not sure what to tell you if you're failing to understand that that money then being absent from the pockets of consumers and businesses is, self-evidently, a burden for the economy to bear.
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
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.
Of course, it's perfectly possible for both to be true; Moscow is a poverty-stricken ghetto patrolled by Putin's secret police *and* life continues pretty much as normal...
But part of the point is exactly that Moscow and St Peterburg are being much less affected by Putin's evil little adventure than the rest of the country - because the moment the cities start hurting, there may be more pressure on Putin. Because the country yokels don't matter (as I think @Dura_Ace has pointed out several times, in his own inimitable style...)
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
They aren't utterly mad mostly the seem to see it climate changes as a way of forcing socialism on a population that does'nt want it. It is for most of them their last chance to do so
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.
The fanatics will never be appeased. That is for certain. It could be 90% and it would not be enough.
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
They aren't utterly mad mostly the seem to see it climate changes as a way of forcing socialism on a population that does'nt want it. It is for most of them their last chance to do so
The old watermelon approach. IIRC correctly a certain Susan Michie, an avowed communist, wanted to use Covid in a similar way as part of iSAGE...
Comments
To listen to the climate extremists you would think we had done nothing and taken no action on the environment.
To that end some fringe youth eco offshoot of Just Stop Oil plans to bring the tube to a halt. Something to do with the enviroment and Palestine now, natch.
"The spokesman said: “New oil and gas licencing is ultimately a genocide, a man-made death. That is the same mentality with the situation in Palestine. It is essential to think of them together and not think of them as individual missions.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/hundreds-of-just-stop-oil-linked-youth-plan-to-cripple-london-s-tube-network-with-week-long-attacks/ar-BB1lcQuG
Seattle Times - GOP candidates battle for endorsement in WA governor race
Next week, thousands of Republicans will gather at the Spokane Convention Center to decide which candidates to endorse for the 2024 election, including for governor. . . .
Dave Reichert, the former congressman and King County sheriff, has raised more than $2 million, and early polls suggest he’d be competitive in a November gubernatorial matchup with Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the leading Democrat.
But a substantial number of GOP activists are pushing to endorse Semi Bird, a military veteran and former Richland School Board member who was recalled by voters there last summer for his vote to defy Washington’s indoor mask mandate at the time. While he’s raised just $420,000, he has attracted grassroots support and racked up endorsements from 16 county party organizations. . . .
Bird is unabashed in his support for Donald Trump, saying he voted for the presumptive GOP nominee in the state’s recent presidential primary. Reichert declined to endorse Trump as a congressman and won’t say whether he supports him this year. . . .
The early endorsement process — a new experiment for the state GOP — was created in a bid for unity. The idea was to avoid a repeat of past elections in which too many Republican candidates in some races split the vote in the state’s top-two primary, allowing only Democrats to advance to the general election.
This year, the party has asked candidates to sign a pledge to abide by the convention endorsement outcome, with the losers dropping out and endorsing the winner. Bird signed the pledge; Reichert, as of last week, had not . . . .
Bird supporters have attacked Reichert as a “RINO,” Republican In Name Only, pointing to [his] votes in Congress . . . .
Reichert’s backers warn choosing Bird would amount to a political death wish in Washington, where the GOP hasn’t won a governor’s race since 1980 and is currently shut out of every statewide office. . . .
So basically, it's unprovable?
Everton docked two points for second financial breach - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68723109
In fact, how do we know that the change in weather wasn't caused by ULEZ?
Again I couldn't care less about ULEZ. It doesn't affect me one jot.
If the argument was more about "what is a primary residence and why are the rules silly" then it would have more purchase but the Daily Mail are saying that statements somebody makes impact how their taxes are paid which they don't.
For example, as far as I understand it you can live away from your only owned home for many years (forever?) and you can still be exempt from capital gains tax.
Do you agree that exempting taxis etc from ULEZ is counterproductive if the ambition is to cut emissions?
What they don't seem to realize is that their approach makes climate change more, rather than less, of a danger, because they provoke an enormous reaction.
If you make the necessary changes gradually, and you get buy in from the majority of the population at every stage, and you ensure that people keep getting richer... well, then you'll stop climate change. If you want people to wear hair shirts and be poorer, then you won't get 50.1% of people supporting you, or indeed, any potential action.
Humankind has done an extraordinary job of implementing measures to reduce climate change - and we're just getting started. Ten years ago, I had a Tesla Model S... and that was pretty much it for electric cars on the road. Now some places - like Norway - are 85% electric for new vehicles! Back then China's new coal electricity generation capacity outstripped wind and solar 1,000,000-1. Now, there's far more solar and wind - like 20x - being deployed in China than coal. We've found new ways to heat and cool homes than are dramatically more energy efficient than anything in the past.
All we need - as humanity - is to keep doing what we're doing. Keep electrifying. Keep installing batteries. Keep looking for the million and one marginal improvements. And if we do that, we can keep all getting richer, we can minimize our dependence on parts of the world that hate us, we can improve our balance of payments, and we can keep making the world a cleaner, better place.
I'd have exempted nobody from it and provided more support to people that needed it to get compliant vehicles. But the policy itself is sound to me.
I'd stick a massive tax on high polluting vehicles and large vehicles as an additional step. If I made the rules, cars would be required to pay a massive tax to get into Central London.
So they are under an obligation to say nothing.
But I was asking on a legal basis, that as far as I can see there is no actual evidence she has done anything wrong.
I understand the desire for simplicity, but I also think Norway has done this right. Rather than trying to make ICEs more expensive, make electric cars cheaper. Mandate that any new supermarket has 30 new EV charging stalls, for example: it costs almost nothing when you're building a new development to do that, and it makes EVs that much more attractive.
Car manufacturers have been more than happy to continue making ICE vehicles, even while we have understood the greenhouse effect since the 1960s. Musk isn't investing all that time and cash into Tesla out of the goodness of his heart - he's taking advantage of a market created by Greta Thunberg.
Ditto for private hire vehicles which are also exempt AFAIK if wheelchair accessible.
But I don’t care about that anyway, the strange thing is - why is she pretending not to have lived at her husbands house with him and her children and cats? Let’s pretend there’s no tax issue. All the neighbours say she lived there, there are pictures of her with her cats there with her saying she just got back from work, her kids lived there, it is implausible that she didn’t - why lie?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPYqLlKDMTM
Just posted by the Telegraph. I've not watched it yet.
They changed the subsidy rules to this, in the US, last year.
Outside the Tesla network, the number of broken chargers is ridiculous.
Greta Thunberg did nothing to create the market, Musk created his firm before anyone had ever heard of Thunberg. Indeed Thunberg wasn't even born when this began.
It was about 35 years ago that Thatcher spoke about the problems with emissions and cutting emissions became government policy.
Humanity has been working on changing emissions for 35 years, JSO/Thunberg etc have jumped on the bandwagon not the other way around.
That's just another of his many lies...
So it's lying that is the issue - and that is what the Daily Mail should be going after as it shows hypocrisy.
According to Wikipedia, Thunberg was born 2003.
I love this though. A furious scrap between the right and left over their green credentials, when we all know deep down it was Ed Davey who saved us.
And we are finally onto the hard stuff - road transport and gas boilers. What fantastic progress.
Tesla was founded in the same year Thunberg was born, so if she was responsible for it then that's seriously impressive.
Much of what I post is non political and quite frankly mindless drivel from my random thought processes.
NEW THREAD
For example, check out link below for some (more) laughs:
https://thecritic.co.uk/author/christopher-pincher/
Boris fibbing? Say it ain't so.
Ulez will net £300mn in its first year apparently. I'm not sure what to tell you if you're failing to understand that that money then being absent from the pockets of consumers and businesses is, self-evidently, a burden for the economy to bear.
But part of the point is exactly that Moscow and St Peterburg are being much less affected by Putin's evil little adventure than the rest of the country - because the moment the cities start hurting, there may be more pressure on Putin. Because the country yokels don't matter (as I think @Dura_Ace has pointed out several times, in his own inimitable style...)