Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Money, money, money – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517
    Pulpstar said:

    Healey, NY Times on Vance choice:

    "My mind went to two things: the Electoral College map and the Republican Party’s future. Presidential politics boils down to getting to 270 Electoral College votes, and Vance could help Trump in the industrial Midwestern states that are those must-win “blue wall” states for President Biden. Trump-Vance will pack a wallop in Michigan, western Pennsylvania, parts of Wisconsin."

    imho Biden lost the evening of that terrible debate, but now things are looking even worse frankly.

    Is Vance popular in the industrial mid-west? Vance under-performed Trump (2022 vs 2020, which is a national environment where the GOP won The House vs one where they lost it) so he doesn't seem wildly popular even in Ohio?
    One of the reasons that Trump picked Vance is that, like Pence, he is by himself very much a second rater.
    Yep - turns out Haley was out at 50-1 for a reason yesterday.
    Haley is the anti-Trump Republican candidate. Her "endorsement" was simply about saying that as a republican, she would accept the Republican candidate.

    There is no way that Trump would give her any job, if/when he becomes President.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,545
    Leon said:

    Leon said:


    President Biden: “if Russian tanks and troops cross the Ukraine border, there will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We will bring an end to it”

    @bondegezou: “Russia blew up Nordstream!”

    @bondegezou, you have no idea how much joy I get from your crushing stupidity, day after day. Please never change

    Since you've not answered my question, I'll assume one of your books did provide an inspiration for Breivik.

    In which case, you should understand the danger of conspiracy theories, and how they can attract nutcases. And occasionally nutcases will do bad stuff.

    Hence why I treat your 'Ukraine was behind the shooting' shit as beneath contempt. There is zero evidence of it, but that sort of thing could lead to lots of deaths if it gains currency.

    As an aside, it's interesting that you automatically pick Ukraine as the bad actor, given Russia's got a track record of knocking off people it doesn't like abroad, and had just been accused of plotting to assassinate the head of one of Germany's defence manufacturers:
    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/us-germany-foiled-russian-assassination-plot/index.html

    But you choose Ukraine. Odd that.
    The book thing was an obvious fucking joke, even at the time, you galactic moron
    You have a *very* odd idea of a 'joke'.

    "Yeah, you know, Breivik used one of my books for inspiration..."

    Everyone: Ha ha ha ha ha ha

    (Actually, tumbleweeds)

    It's particularly odd given what I recall as being the context, which was a discussion of how people interpret the works of authors.

    So you lied as a 'joke'.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    edited July 16

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 295

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Phil said:

    Cookie said:

    I'm more interested in the background of this character. As far as anyone is aware so far, he seems weirdly normal. If he has strong political opinions he has kept them to himself (which is unusual in the internet age). He doesn't appear to be down any rabbit holes which have yet been unearthed. Nothing in his backstory suggests he's stupid or insane.

    I'm all for the lone nutter angle. It explains many things. But for a lone nutter he appears unusually balanced and socially well adjusted.

    Of course, there may be more to come out.

    He seems to have found a remarkably effective vantage point outside the Federal security cordon. That strongly suggests prior surveillance, either by him or someone else, and prior knowledge of the divided police operation. How did the ladder get there?
    He bought a ladder the day before: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/us/thomas-crooks-trump-rally-shooting-invs/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

    Whether that was the ladder used on the day I don’t know. But it does suggest that going for Trump was a pre-planned operation, not a spur of the moment thing.
    Thanks for the info. Maybe the USA should make it harder to buy ladders.
    The National Ladder Association vehemently disagrees. It’s a constitutional right to keep and bear ladders, and it’s unconstitutional for the government to limit ladder ownership in any way. Even the really long ones that reach up several floors, they shouldn’t just be restricted to fire departments, and no the government shouldn’t be keeping records of who is buying ladders.
    Having seen the way ladders are used on building sites, I have proposed the following, in the past.

    1) All ladder operations can only be undertaken by a minimum of 2 trained ladder operators.
    2) A ladder operator has to do a 3 year training course, and pass detailed background checks and a mental health evaluation.
    3) All ladders to be secured with advanced locking systems.
    4) These systems only release the ladder if two qualified ladder operators use their official Ladder Launch Keys. They need to insert the keys, rotate 90 degrees and hold for 2 seconds. The key stations are 5 meters apart, and the keys need to be inserted and turned within 250 milliseconds.
    So how is anyone ever supposed to use their ladder. Admit it, you just want to ban ladders.
    No, I just want people to use ladders sanely.
    There’s nothing sane about restricting access to ladders, even the really tall ones.

    You just don’t want people to have ladders at all, a shill for the forklift industry.
    Forklifts?

    Nah

    Big Scaffolding, you mean.
    Ah, scaffolding, how to make it take all bloody day to change a light bulb or a roof tile, when you could just be using a ladder and have it done in five minutes.

    That’s what happens when you ban ladders. Britian banned ladders a couple of decades ago after one unfortunate incident in a school, and now there’s an epidemic of lost productivity due to scaffolding.
    Bet you have a whole arsenal of high grade ladders at home. No licensing, no training, posts to dodgy political forums.....

    Textbook.
    Watched next door's rendering subcontractor climb a ladder clutching a cable reel in one hand and grinder in the other. As an H&S intervention, I politely enquired as to whether he'd considered there might be a safer option, "Don't worry about me, I'll be fine". He the proceeded to rain chunks of render all over next door's and our front garden, car, access.
    In hindsight I should have kicked it out from under him.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 681
    Unbelievable that we have had 4 big news stories in Welsh politics today... With the big two drowning out the first two which were both very newsworthy....
    1. Gething resignation
    2. 4 Ministers resigning
    3. Release of justification into Blythyn sacking (it wasn't)
    4. Drafting into government of a sex petvert to ensure budget passes
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,228
    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    Indeed. The real piece of fun will be schools that provide SEND places for councils. No VAT on SEND places only, maybe? - but what if the school is majority non-SEND? And decides to raise fees evenly to spread the load?

    Another fun one will be those schools with large foundations. Once you are in VAT world, your business changes - you can start claiming VAT back on lots of stuff. It will be interesting to see how much net VAT they actually pay.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    The right to education is a human right - the right to private education because you don't want your precious child mixing with children from parents poorer than you is not a human right..

    As I said when the idea was first suggested a few weeks ago - Lord Pannick has found a potential payday and is trying his hardest to find someone willing to pay him a fortune for him to lose a court case.
  • kjh said:

    Four Welsh government ministers resign demanding Gething goes

    How Gething has defied demands to go after he lost a vonc is arrogance and just wrong

    How about Lord Falconer?
    @MisterBedfordshire nice revival of the joke. You don't seem to have been here long enough to know it or are you posting under a different name or are you a long time lurker previously? I tried looking you up to see when you had joined, but noticed you had blocked that. Can I also ask why? I notice several people do and I have never understood why as it doesn't seem to give any privacy benefits. Am I missing something? I hope not. (Panic starting to set in now)
    Was Paul Bedfordshire until left in 2016.
    no idea about the ioining info visibility but rejoined in June.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,228
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    The right to education is a human right - the right to private education because you don't want your precious child mixing with children from parents poorer than you is not a human right..

    As I said when the idea was first suggested a few weeks ago - Lord Pannick has found a potential payday and is trying his hardest to find someone willing to pay him a fortune for him to lose a court case.
    You have a very warped idea of what drives parents to choose private education.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    Indeed. The real piece of fun will be schools that provide SEND places for councils. No VAT on SEND places only, maybe? - but what if the school is majority non-SEND? And decides to raise fees evenly to spread the load?

    Another fun one will be those schools with large foundations. Once you are in VAT world, your business changes - you can start claiming VAT back on lots of stuff. It will be interesting to see how much net VAT they actually pay.
    It really wouldn't surprise me if the total amount of VAT raised from taxing private schools turned out to be less than zero.

    But it was a piece of red meat designed to keep the left wing of the Labour party onside so it's going to be implemented come what may..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    The right to education is a human right - the right to private education because you don't want your precious child mixing with children from parents poorer than you is not a human right..

    As I said when the idea was first suggested a few weeks ago - Lord Pannick has found a potential payday and is trying his hardest to find someone willing to pay him a fortune for him to lose a court case.
    IIRC the ECHR ruled that there was a right to give your child a different education to state education - it was in connection with home schooling in Germany...
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    boulay said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Phil said:

    Cookie said:

    I'm more interested in the background of this character. As far as anyone is aware so far, he seems weirdly normal. If he has strong political opinions he has kept them to himself (which is unusual in the internet age). He doesn't appear to be down any rabbit holes which have yet been unearthed. Nothing in his backstory suggests he's stupid or insane.

    I'm all for the lone nutter angle. It explains many things. But for a lone nutter he appears unusually balanced and socially well adjusted.

    Of course, there may be more to come out.

    He seems to have found a remarkably effective vantage point outside the Federal security cordon. That strongly suggests prior surveillance, either by him or someone else, and prior knowledge of the divided police operation. How did the ladder get there?
    He bought a ladder the day before: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/us/thomas-crooks-trump-rally-shooting-invs/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

    Whether that was the ladder used on the day I don’t know. But it does suggest that going for Trump was a pre-planned operation, not a spur of the moment thing.
    Thanks for the info. Maybe the USA should make it harder to buy ladders.
    The National Ladder Association vehemently disagrees. It’s a constitutional right to keep and bear ladders, and it’s unconstitutional for the government to limit ladder ownership in any way. Even the really long ones that reach up several floors, they shouldn’t just be restricted to fire departments, and no the government shouldn’t be keeping records of who is buying ladders.
    Having seen the way ladders are used on building sites, I have proposed the following, in the past.

    1) All ladder operations can only be undertaken by a minimum of 2 trained ladder operators.
    2) A ladder operator has to do a 3 year training course, and pass detailed background checks and a mental health evaluation.
    3) All ladders to be secured with advanced locking systems.
    4) These systems only release the ladder if two qualified ladder operators use their official Ladder Launch Keys. They need to insert the keys, rotate 90 degrees and hold for 2 seconds. The key stations are 5 meters apart, and the keys need to be inserted and turned within 250 milliseconds.
    More construction workers are killed by dropped mobile phones and tools than by ladders.

    Typical prejudice from the elevator elite.
    Does anyone know anyone with experience of toolmaking and the law to see how we could legislate against some of the construction deaths?
    My dad made a living robbing tradesmen's vans overnight.

    Sadly my mother divorced him on the grounds that he was a tooltaker not a toolmaker.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    edited July 16

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    The right to education is a human right - the right to private education because you don't want your precious child mixing with children from parents poorer than you is not a human right..

    As I said when the idea was first suggested a few weeks ago - Lord Pannick has found a potential payday and is trying his hardest to find someone willing to pay him a fortune for him to lose a court case.
    You have a very warped idea of what drives parents to choose private education.
    It wasn't meant as a serious comment - it was more to emphasis how f***ing unwinnable any court case Lord Pannick attempted would be..

    But the point was that the law says a child has a right to education, it doesn't say there is any right to private education...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,689
    Thinking about the header - if the party's financial position is so dire, and if donations are considered to be so dependent on the result of the leadership contest, doesn't that mean the Tory Party is in effect up for auction to the highest bidder?

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,033
    Southgate has been smart. There's a good chance it all goes tits up for 2026 - we might not even qualify - and then he can return to bring football home in 2028.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    edited July 16
    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    No different from areas where HMOs need prior permission.

    The only thing it will do is create an interesting two tier market where existing second homes (with permission to be a second home) may be worth more than houses where permission doesn't exist. But that isn't really going to impact anyone more than say a new set of housing nearby...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517
    a
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    No different from areas where HMOs need prior permission.

    The only thing it will do is create an interesting two tier market where existing second homes (with permission to be a second home) may be worth more than houses where permission doesn't exist. But that isn't really going to impact anyone more than say a new set of housing nearby...
    HMOs? Permission?

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,269

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    Indeed. The real piece of fun will be schools that provide SEND places for councils. No VAT on SEND places only, maybe? - but what if the school is majority non-SEND? And decides to raise fees evenly to spread the load?

    Another fun one will be those schools with large foundations. Once you are in VAT world, your business changes - you can start claiming VAT back on lots of stuff. It will be interesting to see how much net VAT they actually pay.
    Labour have always said no VAT on SEND.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    Indeed. The real piece of fun will be schools that provide SEND places for councils. No VAT on SEND places only, maybe? - but what if the school is majority non-SEND? And decides to raise fees evenly to spread the load?

    Another fun one will be those schools with large foundations. Once you are in VAT world, your business changes - you can start claiming VAT back on lots of stuff. It will be interesting to see how much net VAT they actually pay.
    Labour have always said no VAT on SEND.
    No VAT on SEND places or no VAT on SEND schools?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,269

    algarkirk said:

    I still think Lord Pannick is wrong.

    Labour’s tax raid could ‘decimate’ Jewish schools

    Thousands of pupils will have ‘nowhere to go’ if tax on private education goes ahead


    Thousands of Jewish students will have “nowhere to go” if the Government goes ahead with plans to tax private education, a charity has warned.

    A charity that supports Jewish independent schools said Sir Keir Starmer’s VAT raid and plans to remove business rate exemptions would force many to close.

    Separately, lawyers have said that Labour’s private education tax plans risk illegally discriminating against independent faith schools.

    Lord Pannick, a leading human rights lawyer, told The Telegraph that making private schools subject to VAT was likely to breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-private-vat-raid-decimate-jewish-schools/

    I am sure Lord Pannick will find someone to instruct him to seek a declaration that VAT on school fees breaches the ECHR. It very obviously doesn't. Just as having to pay income tax limits choices for everyone by taking money away doesn't breach ECHR. A right to education is not the same as a right to go to Eton.
    For the umpteenth time private schools are *not* Eton.

    It's like always thinking of Harrods or Fortnum & Mason when you should be thinking about your local village shop.
    Indeed. The real piece of fun will be schools that provide SEND places for councils. No VAT on SEND places only, maybe? - but what if the school is majority non-SEND? And decides to raise fees evenly to spread the load?

    Another fun one will be those schools with large foundations. Once you are in VAT world, your business changes - you can start claiming VAT back on lots of stuff. It will be interesting to see how much net VAT they actually pay.
    Labour have always said no VAT on SEND.
    No VAT on SEND places or no VAT on SEND schools?
    Places, I believe.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,614
    Chris said:

    Thinking about the header - if the party's financial position is so dire, and if donations are considered to be so dependent on the result of the leadership contest, doesn't that mean the Tory Party is in effect up for auction to the highest bidder?

    So no change there, then.

    To be clear, the same is true of other parties as well. Trouble is, the alternative is State Funding Of Parties, which is a bit oookie, and we're collectively too tight to do anyway.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,468
    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It’s being claimed rally goers spotted Thomas Crooks TWENTY FIVE MINUTES before he shot. They called out to police. Police did nothing. There is video of it

    https://x.com/health00810/status/1813011010829361624?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Either this is the greatest failure by anything ever anywhere since Creation, or some faction of the cops was involved

    It seems pretty bloody obvious to me, and he wasn't exactly subtle.

    At the very least Trump should have delayed /got off the stage until it was checked out.

    It's worth remembering it's only by a real fluke, and an inch or so, that he isn't dead.
    No one warned Trump for HALF AN HOUR

    This looks increasingly like - at the least - some kind of co-ordinated attempt on Trump’s life, if only by utter negligence. They wanted him dead
    Cock-up is far far more likely than conspiracy.
    It’s almost always so.

    It’s a massive cockup not to have delayed the event though, if they knew there was someone suspicious with a rangefinder and a packback in the close vicinity of the venue and only 150yds from the stage.

    The inquiry is going to be all the different groups of police blaming each other. Apparently six different LEAs involved, plus local private security. The FBI will be pleased to be the lead agency running the investigation, that way they’re least likely to have to take any of the blame.

    One can well imagine someone of means stepping forward to fund a class action lawsuit on behalf of the victims, although the fundraisers for them are already well into the millions of dollars.
    Weird-looking people with assault rifles are the core Trump demographic. You can't shut down a whole event just because you see one of them, it would be like evacuating the LibDem Party Conference if you saw someone wearing sandals.
    Ha ha I’ll give you that.

    In the early days of Trump rallies, they actually had to keep making a point of telling everyone to leave their guns at home, as everyone gets searched on the way in (by local security, supervised by the USSS).

    The problem here, was that the area where the shooter was seen was outside the official perimeter, but still close enough to get a good view, so there were a lot of people hanging around that area rather than actually going in to the event.
    Lying on the roof of the building I think was the big give away which was spotted by dozens well in advance and is on film.
    And people might well be recalling the G8 in 2008, when the Secret Service nearly opened fire on local police snipers who had taken position on a rooftop under their control without informing the Secret Service. Apparently.

    Which might lead to the following sort of conversation:

    "There's a gunman on that roof!"
    SS: "Is that under the local (whatever PD control?"
    "Yes."
    SS: "Okay, it's one of theirs. Don't fire."

    Which is stupid but understandable. You can make it less stupid with:

    "There's a gunman on that roof!"
    "Is that under the local (whatever PD control?"
    "Should be."
    "Okay, contact them and ask them if it's one of their."
    Then the usual comms and organisational snafus occur.

    Such as:
    SS; "Do you have anyone on top of building X?"
    Agency A: "Which building's that?"
    SS: "The one at the corner of Y and Z."
    Agency A: "Ah, the book depository. No, that's Agency B's area."
    SS hangs up and calls Agency B
    Agency B: "Sure, that's our building. I don't think we have anyone up there, but that's Bill's area. I'll just get him..."

    And the minutes roll by....

    Edit: I would hope their processes were better than that. But however good the SS's processes, many of these small local PDs won't have the same experience or institutional knowledge.
    There's quite a lot in that - the USA has 18,000 police agencies, of which 15000+ are local police forces of one sort or another - quite a number perhaps run by a 2024 version of Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane, with a machine gun and a de-militarised armoured car.
    I was going to point out their use of armoured tracked vehicles but checked my facts, despite being on PB, and Sheriff Coltrane apparently had to turn in his M113 some years back.

    https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/28/police-m113-gallery/

    Though with the current designs of wheeled AFVs I'm not sure it makes much difference whether the municipal AFV is a track or an armoured car.
    "checked my facts, despite being on PB" :lol:
    I didn't say tracked. Checked facts are not necessarily in the correct direction :smile: .

    They have a lot of MRAP type vehicles, amongst others, of the type left over after the military has pivoted from Afghanistan type operations to more traditional military ones.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units

    Anyway, there was on Die Hard so it must be true!
    I was using 'tracked' to extend and corroborate your argument, rather than diss it ...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    No different from areas where HMOs need prior permission.

    The only thing it will do is create an interesting two tier market where existing second homes (with permission to be a second home) may be worth more than houses where permission doesn't exist. But that isn't really going to impact anyone more than say a new set of housing nearby...
    Article 4 directions certainly impact the areas over time, so I think there will be some difference - however marginal.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Selebian said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    It’s being claimed rally goers spotted Thomas Crooks TWENTY FIVE MINUTES before he shot. They called out to police. Police did nothing. There is video of it

    https://x.com/health00810/status/1813011010829361624?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Either this is the greatest failure by anything ever anywhere since Creation, or some faction of the cops was involved

    It seems pretty bloody obvious to me, and he wasn't exactly subtle.

    At the very least Trump should have delayed /got off the stage until it was checked out.

    It's worth remembering it's only by a real fluke, and an inch or so, that he isn't dead.
    No one warned Trump for HALF AN HOUR

    This looks increasingly like - at the least - some kind of co-ordinated attempt on Trump’s life, if only by utter negligence. They wanted him dead
    Cock-up is far far more likely than conspiracy.
    It’s almost always so.

    It’s a massive cockup not to have delayed the event though, if they knew there was someone suspicious with a rangefinder and a packback in the close vicinity of the venue and only 150yds from the stage.

    The inquiry is going to be all the different groups of police blaming each other. Apparently six different LEAs involved, plus local private security. The FBI will be pleased to be the lead agency running the investigation, that way they’re least likely to have to take any of the blame.

    One can well imagine someone of means stepping forward to fund a class action lawsuit on behalf of the victims, although the fundraisers for them are already well into the millions of dollars.
    Weird-looking people with assault rifles are the core Trump demographic. You can't shut down a whole event just because you see one of them, it would be like evacuating the LibDem Party Conference if you saw someone wearing sandals.
    Ha ha I’ll give you that.

    In the early days of Trump rallies, they actually had to keep making a point of telling everyone to leave their guns at home, as everyone gets searched on the way in (by local security, supervised by the USSS).

    The problem here, was that the area where the shooter was seen was outside the official perimeter, but still close enough to get a good view, so there were a lot of people hanging around that area rather than actually going in to the event.
    Lying on the roof of the building I think was the big give away which was spotted by dozens well in advance and is on film.
    And people might well be recalling the G8 in 2008, when the Secret Service nearly opened fire on local police snipers who had taken position on a rooftop under their control without informing the Secret Service. Apparently.

    Which might lead to the following sort of conversation:

    "There's a gunman on that roof!"
    SS: "Is that under the local (whatever PD control?"
    "Yes."
    SS: "Okay, it's one of theirs. Don't fire."

    Which is stupid but understandable. You can make it less stupid with:

    "There's a gunman on that roof!"
    "Is that under the local (whatever PD control?"
    "Should be."
    "Okay, contact them and ask them if it's one of their."
    Then the usual comms and organisational snafus occur.

    Such as:
    SS; "Do you have anyone on top of building X?"
    Agency A: "Which building's that?"
    SS: "The one at the corner of Y and Z."
    Agency A: "Ah, the book depository. No, that's Agency B's area."
    SS hangs up and calls Agency B
    Agency B: "Sure, that's our building. I don't think we have anyone up there, but that's Bill's area. I'll just get him..."

    And the minutes roll by....

    Edit: I would hope their processes were better than that. But however good the SS's processes, many of these small local PDs won't have the same experience or institutional knowledge.
    There's quite a lot in that - the USA has 18,000 police agencies, of which 15000+ are local police forces of one sort or another - quite a number perhaps run by a 2024 version of Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane, with a machine gun and a de-militarised armoured car.
    I was going to point out their use of armoured tracked vehicles but checked my facts, despite being on PB, and Sheriff Coltrane apparently had to turn in his M113 some years back.

    https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/11/28/police-m113-gallery/

    Though with the current designs of wheeled AFVs I'm not sure it makes much difference whether the municipal AFV is a track or an armoured car.
    "checked my facts, despite being on PB" :lol:
    I didn't say tracked. Checked facts are not necessarily in the correct direction :smile: .

    They have a lot of MRAP type vehicles, amongst others, of the type left over after the military has pivoted from Afghanistan type operations to more traditional military ones.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units

    Anyway, there was on Die Hard so it must be true!
    I was using 'tracked' to extend and corroborate your argument, rather than diss it ...
    Cheers.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,555
    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,269

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    edited July 16
    Re: Gwynedd - Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area

    Isn't that the idea ?
  • AnthonyTAnthonyT Posts: 41
    MattW said:

    Looking ahead to the King's Speech, this struck me as odd:
    "A separate bill has been promised to extend the right to make equal pay claims under the Equality Act to ethnic minority workers and disabled people."

    I was pretty sure that equal pay already applied to not just both sexes, but races as well. Was that not the case?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y7pqy1v3o

    AIUI the Equality Act applies, but the Equal Pay Act does not.

    The later engages things like benchmarking - so dinner ladies can compare themselves to warehouse operators, for example. That cannot be applied for race and disabled discrimination under the A, which is much more individually focused for redress.

    So it is bringing it into line. An average disabled person would be 15-20% down on the non-disabled person, which for a woman would be on top of the "woman discount".

    For a comparison. one of my constant problems with anti-wheelchair barriers blocking footpaths is that only an individual disabled person subject to discrimination (eg kept out of the public footpath) by *that* barrier can take legal action under EA2010, and must do it personally. So the difficult process can be used to avoid addressing the issue.

    That's as understand it. Note that I personally have certain qualms about how benchmarking works, but that is what I think they are doing.
    Incorrect. The Equal Pay Act was repealed with its substantive provisions incorporated into the Equality Act.

    If the Equality Act is deficient the right response is to amend it not introduce a new law.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/10/02/will-some-be-more-equal-than-others/
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,555
    edited July 16

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
    No, but I do think that we are now living in a multi-party system again after a long period of “big 2” dominance and I think it would be useful for the HoC to go some way to reflecting that. A question + follow up for each minor party would be a way of addressing that.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,524

    kjh said:

    Four Welsh government ministers resign demanding Gething goes

    How Gething has defied demands to go after he lost a vonc is arrogance and just wrong

    How about Lord Falconer?
    @MisterBedfordshire nice revival of the joke. You don't seem to have been here long enough to know it or are you posting under a different name or are you a long time lurker previously? I tried looking you up to see when you had joined, but noticed you had blocked that. Can I also ask why? I notice several people do and I have never understood why as it doesn't seem to give any privacy benefits. Am I missing something? I hope not. (Panic starting to set in now)
    Was Paul Bedfordshire until left in 2016.
    no idea about the ioining info visibility but rejoined in June.
    Cheers. If you click on a name you can see their posts, posts with likes, when joined, etc, etc. Nothing private. Some people block it. It sounds like some might block it and not realise it then, or it's a default as there really isn't any reason to block and on occasions I have found it very useful to remind myself of an interesting post.

    PS I was being a bit of a pain/pedant on our discussion on Merton the other day. Apologies for being over the top. You obviously knew your stuff.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,428
    edited July 16
    Ceasefire Now!!!

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/07/16/yahya-sinwar-hamas-under-pressure-agree-ceasefire-israel/

    The CIA believes that Hamas’ leader in Gaza is under increasing pressure from his own commanders to agree to a ceasefire with Israel, according to a report by CNN.

    Yahya Sinwar is not “concerned with his mortality” but is under pressure because of the suffering in Gaza which he is being blamed for, CIA director Bill Burns told a closed-door conference, according to CNN.

    A US official also told the news channel that Washington is under the impression that Sinwar no longer wants to rule Gaza, opting instead for an “interim governance” plan as part of a ceasefire with Israel where the terror group won’t control Gaza.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,269

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
    No, but I do think that we are now living in a multi-party system again after a long period of “big 2” dominance and I think it would be useful for the HoC to go some way to reflecting that. A question + follow up for each minor party would be a way of addressing that.
    Agreed. 13 parties elected to the Commons is, I'm guessing, a record... I guess it depends how you count 1945.

    6 independents is the highest number since 1945, which had 9 independents (7 from university seats), plus an Ind Conservative, an Ind Unionist, 4 Ind Lab, 2 Ind Liberal and an Ind Progressive.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,974
    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    edited July 16

    a

    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    No different from areas where HMOs need prior permission.

    The only thing it will do is create an interesting two tier market where existing second homes (with permission to be a second home) may be worth more than houses where permission doesn't exist. But that isn't really going to impact anyone more than say a new set of housing nearby...
    HMOs? Permission?

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    Remember that Twin A has just bought in Durham where there is a very large difference between houses where students HMOs are allowed and where they are not allowed.

    The difference in value is about £80,000 per plausible bedroom..

    And yes it's probably hard to enforce and few councils have but the figures can be significant..
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,127
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    I fully back these proposals as I back the 100% Council tax uplift in Conwy rising to 200% in 2025

    Indeed there is some evidence it is working and is fair to local residents

    https://www.conwy.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-Tax/Council-Tax-Premium-Update.aspx
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
    No, but I do think that we are now living in a multi-party system again after a long period of “big 2” dominance and I think it would be useful for the HoC to go some way to reflecting that. A question + follow up for each minor party would be a way of addressing that.
    But how would you define a minor party?

    And remember the Lib Dems didn't get a question every week when they had 11 MPs - at the moment even the SNP only have 9...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,801
    Leon said:

    It’s being claimed rally goers spotted Thomas Crooks TWENTY FIVE MINUTES before he shot. They called out to police. Police did nothing. There is video of it

    https://x.com/health00810/status/1813011010829361624?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Either this is the greatest failure by anything ever anywhere since Creation, or some faction of the cops was involved

    More likely the police passed it on to the secret service. Who did nothing.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,974

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    I fully back these proposals as I back the 100% Council tax uplift in Conwy rising to 200% in 2025

    Indeed there is some evidence it is working and is fair to local residents

    https://www.conwy.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-Tax/Council-Tax-Premium-Update.aspx
    It will be replicated across the country. An opportunity for the Lib Dems in rural/Blue Wall areas?
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    I fully back these proposals as I back the 100% Council tax uplift in Conwy rising to 200% in 2025

    Indeed there is some evidence it is working and is fair to local residents

    https://www.conwy.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-Tax/Council-Tax-Premium-Update.aspx
    It will be replicated across the country. An opportunity for the Lib Dems in rural/Blue Wall areas?
    It works in the South West but probably annoys their votes in the Home Counties who may well want to buy their retirement home early...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,689

    Chris said:

    Thinking about the header - if the party's financial position is so dire, and if donations are considered to be so dependent on the result of the leadership contest, doesn't that mean the Tory Party is in effect up for auction to the highest bidder?

    So no change there, then.

    To be clear, the same is true of other parties as well. Trouble is, the alternative is State Funding Of Parties, which is a bit oookie, and we're collectively too tight to do anyway.
    Of course you can say it's true of other parties in theory.

    But the implication of the header is that donors will not want to donate unless "their" candidate wins the leadership. And also that the party's financial position is so dire that it is desperate need of those donations.

    That seems to place the donors in a very direct relationship to the leadership election and its result.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,635

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
    No, but I do think that we are now living in a multi-party system again after a long period of “big 2” dominance and I think it would be useful for the HoC to go some way to reflecting that. A question + follow up for each minor party would be a way of addressing that.
    Agreed. 13 parties elected to the Commons is, I'm guessing, a record... I guess it depends how you count 1945.

    6 independents is the highest number since 1945, which had 9 independents (7 from university seats), plus an Ind Conservative, an Ind Unionist, 4 Ind Lab, 2 Ind Liberal and an Ind Progressive.
    It’s really a healthy development, given the huge hurdle our voting system presents to anyone attempting to break in from outside the two main parties. When I was young, the liberals were lucky to come away with a handful of seats and other than that it was only the occasional Dick Taverne that managed to beat the system, and even then usually only for a single election.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,635
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    We have a separate issue that isn't yet covered that some housing ends up being untaxed where it's used as a holiday let.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,127
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,974
    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    edited July 16
    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    I don't think anyone (sane) is talking about CGT on primary residences.

    What people are talking about is a saner tax system than council tax which is based on cursory glances 35 years ago...

    And being frank it wouldn't be difficult to implement anything better - the downside is it would reveal the true 2 nation (London v everywhere else) country we've become over the past 25 years.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,524
    edited July 16
    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    Given the price of some houses very near the seafront in Llandudno there is a lot of kite flying in those prices, even ignoring the massive premium for a sea view..
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    edited July 16
    AnthonyT said:



    MattW said:

    Looking ahead to the King's Speech, this struck me as odd:
    "A separate bill has been promised to extend the right to make equal pay claims under the Equality Act to ethnic minority workers and disabled people."

    I was pretty sure that equal pay already applied to not just both sexes, but races as well. Was that not the case?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y7pqy1v3o

    AIUI the Equality Act applies, but the Equal Pay Act does not.

    The later engages things like benchmarking - so dinner ladies can compare themselves to warehouse operators, for example. That cannot be applied for race and disabled discrimination under the A, which is much more individually focused for redress.

    So it is bringing it into line. An average disabled person would be 15-20% down on the non-disabled person, which for a woman would be on top of the "woman discount".

    For a comparison. one of my constant problems with anti-wheelchair barriers blocking footpaths is that only an individual disabled person subject to discrimination (eg kept out of the public footpath) by *that* barrier can take legal action under EA2010, and must do it personally. So the difficult process can be used to avoid addressing the issue.

    That's as understand it. Note that I personally have certain qualms about how benchmarking works, but that is what I think they are doing.
    Incorrect. The Equal Pay Act was repealed with its substantive provisions incorporated into the Equality Act.

    If the Equality Act is deficient the right response is to amend it not introduce a new law.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/10/02/will-some-be-more-equal-than-others/
    Thanks for that clarification.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    Shipbuilding story not from NI where we expected it.

    Scottish Government to invest £14m in Ferry Builder:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe2l0jp2gno
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,468
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,517
    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    The problem with CT on primary residence is that then no-one moves.

    Bit like financial market transaction taxes.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    Carnyx said:
    Reformed cups of tea?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,481
    edited July 16
    Carnyx said:
    Imagine being on a ship in the middle of Typhoon Tip "Make this tea again boy, it's cold !"

    Another use for a storm would be to attempt something like the hour (cycling) record in a velodrome as a storm passes overhead...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,468
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:
    Reformed cups of tea?
    Dunno, but another piece today has this correction:

    'This article was amended on 16 July 2024. East Kilbride’s Open Cattle Show Society was not formed in 1772, as an earlier version said, but the town’s first cattle show was reportedly held that year.'

    Commendable angst for accuracy.

    https://www.theguardian.com/travel/article/2024/jul/16/where-tourists-seldom-tread-towns-with-hidden-histories
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,952
    .
    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
    Without inflation protection it would amount to partial confiscation if you had to move house.

    And legislate to bring it in, with a start date of 2029. That would have much of the positive effect upfront, without the negatives - and spur a lot of transactions to avoid it.. which generate a stamp duty bonanza for the exchequer.

    Rachel Reeves, you can steal my idea for free.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,524
    edited July 16

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    It isn't all cut and dry. It seems a good idea to enable locals to live in their community rather than being driven out or does it mean that it still happens but only the really rich can now afford it (cf to private school and Vat issue). I don't know.

    We have a 2nd home in Southwold. Southwold has about 60% - 75% (depending upon where you look it up) 2nd homes. The entire economy is based upon 2nd homes (just look at the shops). It is possibly an extreme example as it is a very small area and they tend to be used all year around (ours is), but there is definitely a difference between a Saturday and a Wednesday in occupancy and prices of a house here are huge (London prices plus), whereas as soon as you cross the bridge out they drop by a factor of 2 or 3). A doubling of the council tax would be affordable to most 2nd home owners and provide extra to the community, but it wouldn't provide an extra home as people will stay and there is nowhere to build more in Southwold (unless you drain the marshes). The people that service the economy come in each day from surrounding villages.

    Is it unique or are there other hot spots rather than whole areas being bought up by 2nd home owners.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108
    In happier news, looks like summer is going to start in about five hours:

  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    edited July 16
    According to the NYT the police and seekyservs were explicitly told TWO MINUTES before the shooting that there was a man with a gun on a roof getting ready to shoot Trump. Multiple witnesses warned them

    And they did nothing. At this point any sane security detail would get Trump off that stage in seconds. Even if it’s a false alarm - better safe than sorry - and the evidence was extremely good that this wasn’t a false alarm

    wtf happened?
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    It isn't all cut and dry. It seems a good idea to enable locals to live in their community rather than being driven out or does it mean that it still happens but only the really rich can now afford it (cf to private school and Vat issue). I don't know.

    We have a 2nd home in Southwold. Southwold has about 60% - 75% (depending upon where you look) 2nd homes. The entire economy is based upon 2nd homes (just look at the shops). It is possibly an extreme example as it is a very small area and they tend to be used all year around (ours is), but there is definitely a difference between a Saturday and a Wednesday in occupancy and prices of a house here are huge (London prices plus, whereas as soon as you cross the bridge out they drop by a factor of 2 or 3). A doubling of the council tax would be affordable to most 2nd home owners and provide extra to the community, but it wouldn't provide an extra home as people will stay and there is nowhere to build more in Southwold (unless you drain the marshes). The people that service the economy come in each day from surrounding villages.

    Is it unique or are there other hot spots rather whole areas being bought up by 2nd home owners.
    Can think of places in Cornwall that are probably not quite as bad but won't be far off, St Ives is a large example but Mousehole would definitely meet your criteria...
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 295
    Great interview with Cavendish on Eurosport, looked very happy. Last sprint stage so you;d expect the sprinter's teams to ride anything down to make sure there is a bunch sprint. He's currently 15.5 on BX, can't see him not making sure that he's there with 200m to go.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    edited July 16
    Nigelb said:

    .

    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
    Without inflation protection it would amount to partial confiscation if you had to move house.

    And legislate to bring it in, with a start date of 2029. That would have much of the positive effect upfront, without the negatives - and spur a lot of transactions to avoid it.. which generate a stamp duty bonanza for the exchequer.

    Rachel Reeves, you can steal my idea for free.
    And post 2029 no-one would move...

    Equally given typical house price to wage / household income ratios there is little to zero upside implementing it now...

    Also the tax is transactional it's not an annual charge and ideally you want an annual charge to bring in consistent revenue. Reforming council tax would be my preferred approach...

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108
    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,524
    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You want a random haircut? Are you just going to let them do whatever? Mahican?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    There’s more

    “The Secret Service has acknowledged that before Trump went onstage, local officers were searching for a “suspicious” man who had been flagged by passers-by and that the Secret Service was notified of that hunt. The agency has not said how much earlier that search went on or when the agency was notified of it.”

    NYT

    Like wtaf

    How on earth did they not warn Trump and how on earth did they not find the guy on the roof. HE WAS IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO KILL TRUMP

    It just gets weirder and weirder
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,545
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    Real Men (tm) just buy a shaver and do it themselves.

    Or get their wife to do it for them. A handy tip: if you do this, make sure she's not in a bad mood... ;)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    I know exactly what you mean. But needs must

    I travel so much I’ve got used to braving new barbers. I actually had a (good) cut in Odessa even as the air raid sirens went off. lol

    The key is to find a practical men’s barbers with clippers and nothing fancy. Then ask for a number 3 and longer on top. It’s a universal language

    I have plenty of hair but tragically all grey now
  • KnightOutKnightOut Posts: 117
    IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    Some time ago I suggested that PMQs needed switching to something like 6 Tory 4 Libdem, or 5/6 and 3. 6 and 4 with 5-10 minutes extra on the PMQ time would be better imo.

    No problem with modest changes.

    Would this be a matter for the Majority Party, or the Speaker, or the Usual Channels?

    It could be variable: "PMQs. Since the Prime Mr Starmer has made 6 policy announcements this week, PMQs will take up the remainder of the day. You are first, Mr Anderson."
    I think the LD questions should be boosted too, to at least 3.

    I’d like to see minor party leaders getting 2 each PMQs too. I think it’s important we hear from them particularly given the successes in number of votes Reform and the Greens achieved. Surely it won’t take up too much extra time, say an extra 15 minutes to fit in.
    Do you want to decide PMQ questions on votes rather than seats? So, should Reform UK get way more questions than the DUP, or the same number (5 MPs) each?
    No, but I do think that we are now living in a multi-party system again after a long period of “big 2” dominance and I think it would be useful for the HoC to go some way to reflecting that. A question + follow up for each minor party would be a way of addressing that.
    Agreed. 13 parties elected to the Commons is, I'm guessing, a record... I guess it depends how you count 1945.

    6 independents is the highest number since 1945, which had 9 independents (7 from university seats), plus an Ind Conservative, an Ind Unionist, 4 Ind Lab, 2 Ind Liberal and an Ind Progressive.
    It’s really a healthy development, given the huge hurdle our voting system presents to anyone attempting to break in from outside the two main parties. When I was young, the liberals were lucky to come away with a handful of seats and other than that it was only the occasional Dick Taverne that managed to beat the system, and even then usually only for a single election.
    Taverne must be closing in on John Freeman's record as the longest-lived former MP?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    If Trump hadn’t come so very close to dying and if others hadn’t died, I’d start to suspect Trump staged this himself
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    Real Men (tm) just buy a shaver and do it themselves.

    Or get their wife to do it for them. A handy tip: if you do this, make sure she's not in a bad mood... ;)
    Well yes that's what I do now (the former). It was a lockdown move. It's surprisingly easy to do slightly better than just a no. 1 all over. If I could give my younger self one piece of advice, it would be to go down that route 20 years earlier.
    I sometimes feel a pang of nostalgia looking at old photos in which I had hair, but essentially it was hair which looked good for a few days after a haircut, then rubbish until the next haircut. And which cost me £10 a month.
    I came out of lockdown rather less able to grow hair on the top of my head than was previously the case. But it's rather academic now. In all honesty I'm probably better looking being able to keep the small amount of hair that I have mercilessly cropped than I was 80% of the time when my crowning glory was a mess of black wavy hair.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    edited July 16
    eek said:

    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    It isn't all cut and dry. It seems a good idea to enable locals to live in their community rather than being driven out or does it mean that it still happens but only the really rich can now afford it (cf to private school and Vat issue). I don't know.

    We have a 2nd home in Southwold. Southwold has about 60% - 75% (depending upon where you look) 2nd homes. The entire economy is based upon 2nd homes (just look at the shops). It is possibly an extreme example as it is a very small area and they tend to be used all year around (ours is), but there is definitely a difference between a Saturday and a Wednesday in occupancy and prices of a house here are huge (London prices plus, whereas as soon as you cross the bridge out they drop by a factor of 2 or 3). A doubling of the council tax would be affordable to most 2nd home owners and provide extra to the community, but it wouldn't provide an extra home as people will stay and there is nowhere to build more in Southwold (unless you drain the marshes). The people that service the economy come in each day from surrounding villages.

    Is it unique or are there other hot spots rather whole areas being bought up by 2nd home owners.
    Can think of places in Cornwall that are probably not quite as bad but won't be far off, St Ives is a large example but Mousehole would definitely meet your criteria...
    One of my speculations (that I have no data on, but others' might) is that an increase of X in Council Tax should in theory reduce the price of a house by the value of an annuity investment paying X per annum, to balance up.

    So on current returns, if Council Tax is +£1000 per annum, that should knock £25-50k ish (very ish) off the value of the property. Lots of assumptions and ignoring tax factors. As £100k buys around £4k of annuity in a pension.

    Potentially a contribution to balancing up of house values.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,177
    kjh said:

    eek said:

    Hansard Society is saying that the way opposition days and PMQ questions are shared out probably needs to change now the Tories have only 55% of the opposition seats and not 70-74% (as has always been the case before) https://x.com/HansardSociety/status/1813094972104511809

    If you’re going to do that though you need to have a clear set of agreed principles laid down all parties sign up to respect in future. It strikes me that once you start changing things like this it opens the floodgates for everyone demanding different treatment. I think that is why the system has worked as it has done for some time.
    The system has changed in the past. The UK constitution is one that evolves. The current allocation of PMQ questions only dates back to 1997. It was varied during the 2010-5 coalition.
    How is membership of select committees decided? I think* they have more minor party representation than at PMQs. Maybe there is something there we could look at for a lead in how to arrange things.

    *think, not know. Happy to be corrected.
    Select committee chairs and membership are decided in proportion to how many MPs you won, AIUI.
    Seems a good basis for PMQs and Opposition Days as well. I would also like to see more time being allocated for Back Bench motions/Private Members Bills. Try and reduce some of the party domination in favour of the MPs themselves.
    I know from previous discussions this is something we both agree on. I would like to see the whips offices/role weakened. In fact I would like to see the official whipping operation removed entirely. You can't stop it happening unofficially, but I don't like the fact that it is part of the official process.

    No MP should be officially whipped (I have just realised that might result in some unseemly replies)
    Its nice to know there is at least one other poster on here who shares my view on that.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You want a random haircut? Are you just going to let them do whatever? Mahican?
    During lockdown, I discovered I could do random haircuts myself.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,974
    edited July 16
    Leon said:

    There’s more

    “The Secret Service has acknowledged that before Trump went onstage, local officers were searching for a “suspicious” man who had been flagged by passers-by and that the Secret Service was notified of that hunt. The agency has not said how much earlier that search went on or when the agency was notified of it.”

    NYT

    Like wtaf

    How on earth did they not warn Trump and how on earth did they not find the guy on the roof. HE WAS IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO KILL TRUMP

    It just gets weirder and weirder

    The only explanation I can think of is that this is all routine.

    That at every Trump rally, there are loads of suspicious people wandering around, random people climbing things to get a look at Trump, MAGA people with assault rifles flexing their rights.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,383
    edited July 16
    Nigelb said:

    .

    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
    Without inflation protection it would amount to partial confiscation if you had to move house.

    And legislate to bring it in, with a start date of 2029. That would have much of the positive effect upfront, without the negatives - and spur a lot of transactions to avoid it.. which generate a stamp duty bonanza for the exchequer.

    Rachel Reeves, you can steal my idea for free.
    We've just accepted an offer on our house and I decided to check how much stamp duty our buyers will be paying... Wow!

    We're certainly doing our bit for the exchequer by selling.

    (Have told Mrs P. we need to buy a plot and build, or buy a cheap doer-upper, to reduce our stamp duty bill.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,699
    edited July 16
    Leon said:

    There’s more

    “The Secret Service has acknowledged that before Trump went onstage, local officers were searching for a “suspicious” man who had been flagged by passers-by and that the Secret Service was notified of that hunt. The agency has not said how much earlier that search went on or when the agency was notified of it.”

    NYT

    Like wtaf

    How on earth did they not warn Trump and how on earth did they not find the guy on the roof. HE WAS IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO KILL TRUMP

    It just gets weirder and weirder

    If the assassin had succeeded, the suspicion that it was a set up or someone deliberately turned a blind eye would have been very hard to dispel.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108
    Leon said:

    If Trump hadn’t come so very close to dying and if others hadn’t died, I’d start to suspect Trump staged this himself

    Well you wouldn't get someone to aim a gun at your ear. Far too risky.
    But you might get someone to fire blanks at you, then on hearing your cue, take cover, whip a small blade you'd tucked in to your daft hat out, slice it over your ear, and emerge covered in blood...

    (I'm just egging you on now!)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,699
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    If Trump hadn’t come so very close to dying and if others hadn’t died, I’d start to suspect Trump staged this himself

    Well you wouldn't get someone to aim a gun at your ear. Far too risky.
    But you might get someone to fire blanks at you, then on hearing your cue, take cover, whip a small blade you'd tucked in to your daft hat out, slice it over your ear, and emerge covered in blood...

    (I'm just egging you on now!)
    That can be disproved because in the sequence of photos taken by the NYT that show the bullet, you can see him touch his ear and then glance at his hand and there is already blood there before he took cover.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    I know exactly what you mean. But needs must

    I travel so much I’ve got used to braving new barbers. I actually had a (good) cut in Odessa even as the air raid sirens went off. lol

    The key is to find a practical men’s barbers with clippers and nothing fancy. Then ask for a number 3 and longer on top. It’s a universal language

    I have plenty of hair but tragically all grey now
    I'm pleased to hear that numbered clippers are a universal language. I once went to a new barbers who refused to use the numbered clipper system. Told me he'd been taught it was lazy. The result was a haircut which probably required a lot more skill, but was neither short enough nor even enough and had taken three times as long as it needed to. Madness.
    But he was an anomaly, and I never revisited.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    If Trump hadn’t come so very close to dying and if others hadn’t died, I’d start to suspect Trump staged this himself

    Well you wouldn't get someone to aim a gun at your ear. Far too risky.
    But you might get someone to fire blanks at you, then on hearing your cue, take cover, whip a small blade you'd tucked in to your daft hat out, slice it over your ear, and emerge covered in blood...

    (I'm just egging you on now!)
    lol. That’s quite good!
  • FossFoss Posts: 920

    Leon said:

    There’s more

    “The Secret Service has acknowledged that before Trump went onstage, local officers were searching for a “suspicious” man who had been flagged by passers-by and that the Secret Service was notified of that hunt. The agency has not said how much earlier that search went on or when the agency was notified of it.”

    NYT

    Like wtaf

    How on earth did they not warn Trump and how on earth did they not find the guy on the roof. HE WAS IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO KILL TRUMP

    It just gets weirder and weirder

    If the assassin had succeeded, the suspicion that it was a set up or someone deliberately turned a blind eye would have been very hard to dispel.
    If Trump had been murdered under those circumstances, then the resulting backlash would make the backlash to Waco/Ruby Ridge look mild...
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    MattW said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    It isn't all cut and dry. It seems a good idea to enable locals to live in their community rather than being driven out or does it mean that it still happens but only the really rich can now afford it (cf to private school and Vat issue). I don't know.

    We have a 2nd home in Southwold. Southwold has about 60% - 75% (depending upon where you look) 2nd homes. The entire economy is based upon 2nd homes (just look at the shops). It is possibly an extreme example as it is a very small area and they tend to be used all year around (ours is), but there is definitely a difference between a Saturday and a Wednesday in occupancy and prices of a house here are huge (London prices plus, whereas as soon as you cross the bridge out they drop by a factor of 2 or 3). A doubling of the council tax would be affordable to most 2nd home owners and provide extra to the community, but it wouldn't provide an extra home as people will stay and there is nowhere to build more in Southwold (unless you drain the marshes). The people that service the economy come in each day from surrounding villages.

    Is it unique or are there other hot spots rather whole areas being bought up by 2nd home owners.
    Can think of places in Cornwall that are probably not quite as bad but won't be far off, St Ives is a large example but Mousehole would definitely meet your criteria...
    One of my speculations (that I have no data on, but others' might) is that an increase of X in Council Tax should in theory reduce the price of a house by the value of an annuity investment paying X per annum, to balance up.

    So on current returns, if Council Tax is +£1000 per annum, that should knock £25-50k ish (very ish) off the value of the property. Lots of assumptions and ignoring tax factors. As £100k buys around £4k of annuity in a pension.

    Potentially a contribution to balancing up of house values.
    While not the exact same thing comparing the price of flats in neighbouring blocks may show you the impact of service charges on the resale price...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    Cavaillon is a pretty run down town

    These are my favourite French towns. Rundown towns in beautiful areas
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,952
    edited July 16
    Leon said:

    According to the NYT the police and seekyservs were explicitly told TWO MINUTES before the shooting that there was a man with a gun on a roof getting ready to shoot Trump. Multiple witnesses warned them

    And they did nothing. At this point any sane security detail would get Trump off that stage in seconds. Even if it’s a false alarm - better safe than sorry - and the evidence was extremely good that this wasn’t a false alarm

    wtf happened?

    It's possible they were just scared of the big guy's reaction and delayed.

    He probably didn't enjoy getting bundled off the stage last time for an alert, and gave them a bollocking ?
    You say them delay dragging him off the stage after the shooting, on his instruction. Same thing, I think.

    If that is the case, then those involved should be demoted/fired.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,521
    edited July 16
    Ici. Cavaillon. It has clearly seen better days



    But because it’s on skid row there are no tourists and everyone is very friendly and keen for business and the restaurants are probably crap but it will be cheap authentic crap
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,108
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    If Trump hadn’t come so very close to dying and if others hadn’t died, I’d start to suspect Trump staged this himself

    Well you wouldn't get someone to aim a gun at your ear. Far too risky.
    But you might get someone to fire blanks at you, then on hearing your cue, take cover, whip a small blade you'd tucked in to your daft hat out, slice it over your ear, and emerge covered in blood...

    (I'm just egging you on now!)
    lol. That’s quite good!
    It's just such a brilliant outcome for Trump that you have to wonder a bit. A few inches to the right, he'd be dead. A few inches to the left, he;s denied a brilliant photo opportunity.
    He didn't even have to finish his speech. A slightly bloodied ear and his crowd is fired up more than any speech ever can, and he can knock off early for a nap.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,545
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    Real Men (tm) just buy a shaver and do it themselves.

    Or get their wife to do it for them. A handy tip: if you do this, make sure she's not in a bad mood... ;)
    Well yes that's what I do now (the former). It was a lockdown move. It's surprisingly easy to do slightly better than just a no. 1 all over. If I could give my younger self one piece of advice, it would be to go down that route 20 years earlier.
    I sometimes feel a pang of nostalgia looking at old photos in which I had hair, but essentially it was hair which looked good for a few days after a haircut, then rubbish until the next haircut. And which cost me £10 a month.
    I came out of lockdown rather less able to grow hair on the top of my head than was previously the case. But it's rather academic now. In all honesty I'm probably better looking being able to keep the small amount of hair that I have mercilessly cropped than I was 80% of the time when my crowning glory was a mess of black wavy hair.
    There's a guy I occasionally see at a swimming pool who has black hair on his chest, grey eyebrows, and a bald head.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,952

    Nigelb said:

    .

    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
    Without inflation protection it would amount to partial confiscation if you had to move house.

    And legislate to bring it in, with a start date of 2029. That would have much of the positive effect upfront, without the negatives - and spur a lot of transactions to avoid it.. which generate a stamp duty bonanza for the exchequer.

    Rachel Reeves, you can steal my idea for free.
    We've just accepted an offer on our house and I decided to check how much stamp duty our buyers will be paying... Wow!

    We're certainly doing our bit for the exchequer by selling.

    (Have told Mrs P. we need to buy a plot and build, or buy a cheap doer-upper, to reduce our stamp duty bill.)
    That's my point, as you note.
    The announcement of CGT introduction in five years' time would seriously concentrate the mind is those sitting on massive gains.

    It would be a relatively painless way of introducing the tax, while getting some of the immediate benefit.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    edited July 16
    This is my photo for the day.

    It's a screenshot from a 30 minute video looking at urban zoning and land use, and street design, in Tokyo/Japan. No one will agree with all of it - I don't, but I learnt a lot of new things. His main theme is walkability; I like 'the best way to reduce motor vehicle journeys is to put everything you need closer together.'


    Top surprises for me:

    - Typical "street" width at 5m little more than half the UK standard. Usually here it would be at least 5.5m carriageway and 1.8m x 2 for the footways.
    - The intensely mixed zoning.

    I'd be interested in comments from those who know Japan better than I do,

    https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U?t=10
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,952
    edited July 16
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    kjh said:

    Eabhal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Imagine a UK where we had CGT on primary residence over the last 30 years.

    Obviously politically untenable, but might have gone some way to fix the public finances by taxing a huge source of income, spread housing demand around a bit more, made it a less attractive investment, made people less protective of rising house prices and therefore reducing NIMBYism...
    Something I am in favour of, but as you say a death sentence for a party going into an election. It could be introduced gradually with high thresholds and inflation protection maybe reintroduced, but valuation at the starting point would be problematic.
    Without inflation protection it would amount to partial confiscation if you had to move house.

    And legislate to bring it in, with a start date of 2029. That would have much of the positive effect upfront, without the negatives - and spur a lot of transactions to avoid it.. which generate a stamp duty bonanza for the exchequer.

    Rachel Reeves, you can steal my idea for free.
    And post 2029 no-one would move...

    Would that be the case ?
    If you had inflation protection, more likely it would just make housing a relatively less attractive investment class, without unduly inhibiting mobility.

    Which was the argument for considering its introduction.

    In any event, it would be a pretty low risk way of trialling it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,127
    MattW said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    Interesting proposal, and a hysterical reaction. I'd don't believe, but a modest reduction in price should be welcome everywhere.

    I'm not sure what caselaw is around Article 4 directions and relevant planning matters. Normally, who owns a house would not be relevant, but may be so under Change of Use.

    A council has been accused of "playing Russian roulette" with residents' lives over its plan to force people to get planning permission for second homes.

    Cabinet members at Cyngor Gwynedd will vote on Tuesday on whether to enforce the controversial move.

    The local authority said it has a "huge housing crisis", fuelled largely by second homes, and is expected to become the first county in Wales to issue a so-called Article 4 direction, forcing people to obtain planning permission for a second home or short-term holiday let.

    Opponents have said the council is deliberately trying to "crash the housing market" and it could devalue every residential property in the local authority area.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2qe073v7o

    Just looked Gwynedd up in the census - a population drop of 3.7% from 2011 to 2021. The council is right to crack down on second homes.

    It's a good example of how "housing crises" in urban and rural areas are different beasts. As the country has become more unequal, the scope for richer households to own more than one house and either short term let it out or leave it empty has increased over time. This is more evident in rural areas, with the supply of housing for residents falling even faster than the population.
    Bigger picture, the UK under-taxes housing, and especially housing that people sit on kept empty, or mostly so.
    Second homes taxes are increasingly being used not just in Wales but holiday areas in England

    There is a development of 12 luxury apartments near to us with prices upto 1 million and it is noticeable they are just not selling and would normally attract second home owners

    I think most residents support the restrictions and 200% uplift in council tax
    It isn't all cut and dry. It seems a good idea to enable locals to live in their community rather than being driven out or does it mean that it still happens but only the really rich can now afford it (cf to private school and Vat issue). I don't know.

    We have a 2nd home in Southwold. Southwold has about 60% - 75% (depending upon where you look) 2nd homes. The entire economy is based upon 2nd homes (just look at the shops). It is possibly an extreme example as it is a very small area and they tend to be used all year around (ours is), but there is definitely a difference between a Saturday and a Wednesday in occupancy and prices of a house here are huge (London prices plus, whereas as soon as you cross the bridge out they drop by a factor of 2 or 3). A doubling of the council tax would be affordable to most 2nd home owners and provide extra to the community, but it wouldn't provide an extra home as people will stay and there is nowhere to build more in Southwold (unless you drain the marshes). The people that service the economy come in each day from surrounding villages.

    Is it unique or are there other hot spots rather whole areas being bought up by 2nd home owners.
    Can think of places in Cornwall that are probably not quite as bad but won't be far off, St Ives is a large example but Mousehole would definitely meet your criteria...
    One of my speculations (that I have no data on, but others' might) is that an increase of X in Council Tax should in theory reduce the price of a house by the value of an annuity investment paying X per annum, to balance up.

    So on current returns, if Council Tax is +£1000 per annum, that should knock £25-50k ish (very ish) off the value of the property. Lots of assumptions and ignoring tax factors. As £100k buys around £4k of annuity in a pension.

    Potentially a contribution to balancing up of house values.
    Our council tax is £3,800 this year

    As a holiday home it would be

    £7,600 for 2024

    £11,400 for 2025
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,614
    MattW said:

    This is my photo for the day.

    It's a screenshot from a 30 minute video looking at urban zoning and land use, and street design, in Tokyo/Japan. No one will agree with all of it - I don't, but I learnt a lot of new things. His main theme is walkability; I like 'the best way to reduce motor vehicle journeys is to put everything you need closer together.'


    Top surprises for me:

    - Typical "street" width at 5m little more than half the UK standard. Usually here it would be at least 5.5m carriageway and 1.8m x 2 for the footways.
    - The intensely mixed zoning.

    I'd be interested in comments from those who know Japan better than I do,

    https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U?t=10

    I almost don't care if this story isn't true;

    "British domestic architecture has also been shaped by idiosyncratic rules that contribute to its poor environmental credentials. For instance, in many parts of the UK, homes that face each other at the rear are required to be built 21 metres apart. This large distance means that instead of clustering buildings together around cool courtyards or shady streets, as is common in hotter climates, many homes in new neighbourhoods are directly exposed to the sun. The 21-metre rule is, according to the Stirling prize-winning architect Annalie Riches, a bizarre hangover from 1902, originally intended to protect the modesty of Edwardian women. The urban designers Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker walked apart in a field until they could no longer see each other’s nipples through their shirts. The two men measured the distance between them to be 70ft (21 metres), and this became the distance that is still used today, 120 years later, to dictate how far apart many British homes should be built."

    https://www.londonremembers.com/subjects/sir-raymond-unwin
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,952
    This is going to be a fascinating decision.
    The outcome ought to be a no brainer, but no doubt there are non-commercial factors involved.

    Czech Republic about to choose between Korea, France for nuclear plant project
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=378765
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,957
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    It is impossible to get a random haircut in Provence. Everywhere is rammed

    Is this literally the only place in Europe that doesn’t have 17,000 Turkish barbers on every high street, laundering money?

    Ok just found one

    You're a gutsy man. I used to get nervous just going to an unfamiliar barber in the same town. Indeed, even a barber I didn't recognise in my usual shop. Going to a shop in a different country - indeed, a country where a different language is spoken! - is brave indeed.
    Hair for me is not so much of an issue nowadays, sadly.
    Speaking of barbers, there seem to be a repeated claim in Reform type circles about Turkish barbers' shops and money laundering.
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KSIKPMkKw2E?app=desktop

    It rather reminds me of the former claims by around nail bars.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,569
    Nigelb said:

    This is going to be a fascinating decision.
    The outcome ought to be a no brainer, but no doubt there are non-commercial factors involved.

    Czech Republic about to choose between Korea, France for nuclear plant project
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=378765

    To be clear the complete no brainer decision is Korea - so let's see what politics occurs..
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,145
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    There’s more

    “The Secret Service has acknowledged that before Trump went onstage, local officers were searching for a “suspicious” man who had been flagged by passers-by and that the Secret Service was notified of that hunt. The agency has not said how much earlier that search went on or when the agency was notified of it.”

    NYT

    Like wtaf

    How on earth did they not warn Trump and how on earth did they not find the guy on the roof. HE WAS IN THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACE FROM WHICH TO KILL TRUMP

    It just gets weirder and weirder

    The only explanation I can think of is that this is all routine.

    That at every Trump rally, there are loads of suspicious people wandering around, random people climbing things to get a look at Trump, MAGA people with assault rifles flexing their rights.
    And of course there were official snipers (aka suspicious-looking men with guns) on many surrounding buildings. Crucially these were placed by at least two different agencies, likely adding to confusion around whether this latest one was friend or foe.
This discussion has been closed.