Howdy, Stranger!

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

Could this sway Tory MPs? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,158
edited September 29 in General
imageCould this sway Tory MPs? – politicalbetting.com

Cleverly or Tugendhat would make best PM, poll on Tory leadership candidates shows https://t.co/4ZcQ0It7QM

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • First!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Fecund.
  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,722
    It's a poll. Ignore.
  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Talking about people going quiet, you said a few weeks ago that Kamala Harris publicly supported defund the police, every time I have asked you for evidence of that, you have gone quiet, any chance you could rectify that?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    Good morning, everyone.

    I'll have a read with my boiled hegg.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of houses being built around here.

    As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

    This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
    Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

    That has not happened yet.

    Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    Taz said:

    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of houses being built around here.

    As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

    This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
    Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

    That has not happened yet.

    Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
    OK, it's early days, but there are indications and they aren't promising. Given the disastrously cumbersome and bureaucrtic planning system, and Labour's plans to just tinker with it, rather than reform it radically, I think it'll be at least two, maybe three, years before any additional houses are started, and about four or five years before they have a noticeable effect on the housing market, if they ever do.

    And of course since that moron Rayner is in charge and she is working with big builders rather than breaking them up, and has removed any notion of beauty from the guidelines, they'll be hideous rabbit hutches that fall apart in a few years. Just in time for the Conservative reaction that puts housing policy back into the deep freeze and caves in to the NIMBYs for another generation.

    Perhaps a gloomy take but having watching this issue for several decades we don't ever seem able to get it right in this country. A friend of mine in Sacramento who studies housing regulations globally for a living recently gave me a long rant about how terrible they are in California, then went on, "And the only place I've seen that's even worse is ... England".
  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    There's also these polls which haven't really been covered in thread headers.

    #New General Election poll - With Leaners

    Texas
    🔴 Trump 51% (+3)
    🔵 Harris 48%

    Florida
    🔴 Trump 51% (+3)
    🔵 Harris 48%

    Emerson #B - 815 LV - 9/5


    https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1832045496086528292
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    Don’t know if this is 100% correct, but allegedly Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have never actually met each other before tomorrow night’s debate. The first dozen pages of images search doesn’t have any of them together.

    They will have been in the same room, such as for Trump’s State of the Union addresses when Harris was a Senator, but can it be true that they’ve never actually met?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.

    *Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,600
    edited September 9
    Sandpit said:

    Don’t know if this is 100% correct, but allegedly Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have never actually met each other before tomorrow night’s debate. The first dozen pages of images search doesn’t have any of them together.

    They will have been in the same room, such as for Trump’s State of the Union addresses when Harris was a Senator, but can it be true that they’ve never actually met?

    It's possible.

    Remember because Trump didn't do a proper handover when he lost in 2020 he never met Biden or Harris during the transition.

    Edit - Also Trump didn't attend the inauguration.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.

    *Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
    Thanks, that's interesting.

    I wonder how much of it can be construed as a "sales puff" and how much as a contractual commitment.

    I do remember people complaining, years ago, about new build flats where the brochures had stuff like brass door handles and when they moved in they were plastic.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,397

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
  • Charlotte Owen is trending again following the news that Boris has given her a plum job to go with the peerage for which she seemed almost uniquely unqualified. People are speculating whether she is his lover or his daughter; whether he is the daddy or the father.

    Both are wrong, imo. My guess is that it is far more mundane and even obvious. Charlotte is whom the notoriously idle Boris relies on to get the work done; a sort of ersatz Dominic Cummings, Munira Mirza or any number of previous aides.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Taz said:

    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of houses being built around here.

    As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

    This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
    Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

    That has not happened yet.

    Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
    'Getting on with it' in the case of a new town would involve a heck of a lot of planning - especially if it is to be done correctly. And this planning phase is not very visible for much of the time.

    I'm sceptical about the new town plans: these always take a few years at best, and even one or two parliaments, to go from proposal to development.

    As an example of how slow this is, the Bourn Airfield supplementary planning document was released in 2019. Formal planning permission only occurred in July, and there has been zero spadework happen.

    https://www.scambs.gov.uk/planning/local-plan-and-neighbourhood-planning/bourn-airfield-spd

    Labour could really speed things up if they wanted; but it's really silly to expect them to have started building brand new (unproposed) developments in a couple of months.
  • Charlotte Owen is trending again following the news that Boris has given her a plum job to go with the peerage for which she seemed almost uniquely unqualified. People are speculating whether she is his lover or his daughter; whether he is the daddy or the father.

    Both are wrong, imo. My guess is that it is far more mundane and even obvious. Charlotte is whom the notoriously idle Boris relies on to get the work done; a sort of ersatz Dominic Cummings, Munira Mirza or any number of previous aides.

    She's not his daughter but as somebody has observed to me, she probably calls him daddy.

    Which meant I ran out of mind bleach.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,587
    Morning all! Bit of a contentious start to the day - maybe we should move off housing policy to lighter topics such as Scottish Independence or AV?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,587

    Charlotte Owen is trending again following the news that Boris has given her a plum job to go with the peerage for which she seemed almost uniquely unqualified. People are speculating whether she is his lover or his daughter; whether he is the daddy or the father.

    Both are wrong, imo. My guess is that it is far more mundane and even obvious. Charlotte is whom the notoriously idle Boris relies on to get the work done; a sort of ersatz Dominic Cummings, Munira Mirza or any number of previous aides.

    She's not his daughter but as somebody has observed to me, she probably calls him daddy.

    Which meant I ran out of mind bleach.
    Oh, no. We should've kept bickering about housing policy. DELETE DELETE.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,655
    SKS says he is willing to be unpopular

    Well he has cracked that one in first 60 days

    Pensioners really are a set of whining tossers they had a 9% increase in April and are due a further inflation busting rise next year too.

    I think the means testing of WFA is 100% correct.

    On this policy I am an SKS fan although a wealth tax would have been even better
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    One thing could be "error margins" that all happen to go the same way. In a thing as complex as a house, there any number of things that can be done, or details that are not sweated and reduce performance, but cannot be detected easily.

    Remember how fuel delivery quantities in pumps that had a legal error margin of (example) +/- 0.25%, would be set to deliver (example) 0.15% below the stated amount because more accurate control (example to +/-0.05%) was possible than allowed in the regulations.
  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Talking about people going quiet, you said a few weeks ago that Kamala Harris publicly supported defund the police, every time I have asked you for evidence of that, you have gone quiet, any chance you could rectify that?
    How many times is every time? You may have asked it once and, as I am not on here much, I may have missed it.

    Re the support for publicly defunding the police, FYI:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html

  • BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    I'd agree on that. The Brookings article the other day suggested in 2016 and 2020 the polling misses at the national level were around underestimating Trump's share of the vote.
  • mwadams said:

    Morning all! Bit of a contentious start to the day - maybe we should move off housing policy to lighter topics such as Scottish Independence or AV?

    I’ve got the greatest Scottish independence thread scheduled for next week.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,237

    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.

    *Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
    I hope the buyers insist on specific performance 😂

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,810
    edited September 9
    I think the betting odds are still undercooking Harris. I’m assuming the wisdom here is that because the polls had a habit of understating Trump in 2016 and 2020 they’re understating him again here. I’m not convinced.

    That’s not to say it’s not very close and could go either way. But I’d favour Harris right now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Good news for Cleverly and Tugendhat, who is just behind as to who would best PM against Starmer. Then Jenrick with Badenoch and Stride polling worst with voters as to who would be the best PM.

    Even better news for Starmer though, despite Labour's overall voteshare having declined since the GE he still leads them all as preferred PM
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/09/cleverly-or-tugendhat-would-make-best-pm-poll-on-tory-leadership-candidates-shows?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    edited September 9

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    RCP though still has Harris ahead on average by 1.4% in the national vote, even after the NYT/Siena poll and 273 to 265 in the EC.

    https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke @Driver @williamglenn @Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.

    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.

    Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
    That's fine, as long as you also give the other side's points occasionally; say when the point you're posting about is obvious b/s, and criticise that side.

    Otherwise you're just cheerleading for one side.

    As it happens, I want Harris to win; mainly (but not just) because I want Ukraine to win. That won't happen under Trump.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,189
    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke @Driver @williamglenn @Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.

    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.

    Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
    @williamglenn is one of the worst for only cherrypicking polls that favour Trump. Some posters only cherrypick things that favour Harris. Plenty of posters take a balanced view.

    Above the line I'm not sure, but the most recent posts are:

    - will the debate change the betting markets? (neutral)
    - could the better polling for Dem Senate candidates in swing states be good news for Harris - probably not (fairly neutral if you read the conclusion though headline is pro-Harris)
    - Republicans are panicking about the fundraising gap (pro-Harris, and possibly misleading as I think the article only looked at money raised by the campaigns rather than superpacs but I'm not sure about this)
    - State of the Union roundup of current polling averages and forecasts (neutral)
    - Favorable polling for Harris in swing states (pro-Harris)
    - Pollsters could be missing Harris surge re voter registration numbers (pro-Harris, and as I pointed out at the time was only looking at one week's data - would be interesting to see data for a longer period on this)
    - Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
    - Positive polling on Harris's economic policy proposals (pro-Harris)


    So I think there are more above the line posts about possible positives for Harris, though if you read through them they mostly stress that the race is very close.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545

    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.

    *Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
    I hope the buyers insist on specific performance 😂

    The structure of the cinema in St Neots was nearly complete when the builders had to take it down and rebuild it, because it had been built 30 inches out of place.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-27447377
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,946
    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.
    Something the woke warriors on here seem determined to ignore.

    Let me see if I can dig out (yet) another article explaining to Left-inclined Brit bien pensant would-be Guardian readers why this is.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 993
    Is there a way of getting the latest posts at the top? If I have missed the instructions on how to do it could you post as a permanent message please.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke @Driver @williamglenn @Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.

    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.

    Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
    RCP has Trump winning Pennsylvania but Harris still narrowly winning the EC as she holds Georgia
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129
    Taz said:

    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of houses being built around here.

    As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

    This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
    Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

    That has not happened yet.

    Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
    Does anybody have a link to a good informed take on the government's proposals? It looks like they're still in a "consultation period" so "nothing has changed yet" is kind of expected: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    (Not a big fan of consultation periods as I think it's part of the problem here, but I suppose it's better to have a few months for the industry to tell them if something's screwed up before it goes live rather than after.)

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,587
    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,810
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke @Driver @williamglenn @Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.

    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.

    Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
    RCP has Trump winning Pennsylvania but Harris still narrowly winning the EC as she holds Georgia
    The fact that Harris is at least polling competitively in AZ/GA/NV/NC is the reason I’d have her as a slight favourite. If she misses one state in the rust belt, she has a decent chance of making up the deficit by squeaking a win in 1-2 of the other swing states. Biden OTOH looked like he needed to hold all 3 rust belt states.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    The chance of success is approximately Zero. It just isn't possible to draw a truly close link between applying a tax to a service, when that tax applies to services generally, and the human right to that service, when that service, universal education, is available free.

    A court might say that in respect of individual service X to particular case Y a local authority can't withdraw funding because of the VAT imposition, but that would be about it.

    The courts are not at the moment in a particularly anti-statute mood at the moment. Ask Shamima Begum, who slightly surprisingly (IMHO wrongly) lost a fairly strong case in the SC just recently.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 993
    pm215 said:

    Taz said:

    Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of houses being built around here.

    As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.

    This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
    Houses were already being built. Labour promised more houses would be built.

    That has not happened yet.

    Yes, they do need a chance they have only been in office a couple of months, but they also need to stop just talking about stuff and get on with it,
    Does anybody have a link to a good informed take on the government's proposals? It looks like they're still in a "consultation period" so "nothing has changed yet" is kind of expected: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

    (Not a big fan of consultation periods as I think it's part of the problem here, but I suppose it's better to have a few months for the industry to tell them if something's screwed up before it goes live rather than after.)

    Housing starts in First Quarter 2024 (the latest available ) were 22,300 (Q1 2023 37,600) Down 40%. Leafleting at the General Election noticeable how many unsold houses were on new estates in rural South Leicestershire.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361
    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    IF people can fund this then why not fund the VAT ?
  • mercatormercator Posts: 815
    TOPPING said:

    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.
    Something the woke warriors on here seem determined to ignore.

    Let me see if I can dig out (yet) another article explaining to Left-inclined Brit bien pensant would-be Guardian readers why this is.
    Torygraph reports and seems pleased about it

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/08/kamala-harris-suffers-poll-blow-eve-critical-trump-debate/

    I increasingly think I am out of my WH positions on Wednesday unless trump defiles himself mid debate. I dunno what is going to happen, I am on KH at 11, cashing out will leave me a big enough cushion to finance my betting up to WH2028.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,946
    edited September 9
    Looking at that chart then obvs Jenrick is difficult to oppose. But he is brittle. They all are with the least of them being Tugendhat and Cleverly in that order. Perhaps it's something to do with the military where you pretty quickly get used to dealing with people not from your background (and no I'm not going to post those clips from "The Guards" in the '60s again).

    Leaders need to be flexible, not brittle (Starmer is brittle, Boris flexible, Thatcher brittle, May brittle, Truss brittle, Blair flexible). Otherwise they will find it difficult to take people, ie the country, with them.

    Although as you can see, flexibility is something quite rare and possessed by Great, if Flawed, Men (although Maggie is an exception and she was great - perhaps a different age)
  • algarkirk said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    The chance of success is approximately Zero. It just isn't possible to draw a truly close link between applying a tax to a service, when that tax applies to services generally, and the human right to that service, when that service, universal education, is available free.

    A court might say that in respect of individual service X to particular case Y a local authority can't withdraw funding because of the VAT imposition, but that would be about it.

    The courts are not at the moment in a particularly anti-statute mood at the moment. Ask Shamima Begum, who slightly surprisingly (IMHO wrongly) lost a fairly strong case in the SC just recently.
    Even in the court of public opinion, surely most people will distinguish between unavailable and unaffordable. If you can't afford Eton next month, was it a travesty of justice that you could not afford Eton last month? That said, it probably is true that VAT on school fees is just red meat to keep lefties onside while pensioners with lots of babies are cast adrift; it is hard to see anyone not already a Labour voter being converted to this cause.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,870
    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
  • agingjb2agingjb2 Posts: 114
    VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032

    Sandpit said:

    Don’t know if this is 100% correct, but allegedly Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have never actually met each other before tomorrow night’s debate. The first dozen pages of images search doesn’t have any of them together.

    They will have been in the same room, such as for Trump’s State of the Union addresses when Harris was a Senator, but can it be true that they’ve never actually met?

    It's possible.

    Remember because Trump didn't do a proper handover when he lost in 2020 he never met Biden or Harris during the transition.
    You don't consider a riot and attempted coup a proper handover of sorts?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    agingjb2 said:

    VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)

    Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,810
    I would be hugely, hugely surprised to see the single person discount go.

    You’ve seen what the reaction has been to WFA. Going for council tax discount at the same time would be - very brave, considering it often benefits the same group.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,587
    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,809
    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    Or indeed the rates, before even that. They had to be paid, never mind how many occupants there were. (I can't remember that there was a discount for no occupiers, though: that seems more like a Tory addition to try and preserve as much of the poll tax they could in the council tax.)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,545
    Sandpit said:

    agingjb2 said:

    VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)

    Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
    Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.

    VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104

    Taz said:

    Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.

    Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.

    Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?

    They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?

    I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
    You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.

    *Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
    I hope the buyers insist on specific performance 😂

    The structure of the cinema in St Neots was nearly complete when the builders had to take it down and rebuild it, because it had been built 30 inches out of place.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-27447377
    I'm quite surprised that that was deemed material, because even for the closest houses it is still only 5% of the distance - the nearest house being 15m away on the other side of the entrance drive and across the house's back yard. Had they got beyond the steel frame, I think the balance may have gone the other way on the decision.

    Even when redone, it was still 6" too close and 6" too high, but they got a retrospective permission for that.

    Given the £1m cost, I might have offered the householders £5-50k each depending on the intrusion, and seen if the Council would play ball.

    https://www.building.co.uk/news/cinema-built-in-wrong-place-twice-finally-opens/5068952.article

    Streetview:
    https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2291494,-0.2643617,3a,75y,92.67h,90.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFwxJ1v7FA3pa-8DGSmLcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,810
    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    Council tax is a fudge, and the bandings are insanely outdated. We do need a new system but it’s a political hot potato.

    I wonder if Labour might commit to a banding review. That would set the cat among the pigeons, but there is at least an argument that it’s been overdue for about 20 years.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,870

    I would be hugely, hugely surprised to see the single person discount go.

    You’ve seen what the reaction has been to WFA. Going for council tax discount at the same time would be - very brave, considering it often benefits the same group.

    Especially as 34% of private renters are in single person households and 43% of social renters its going to hit them hard and they are hardly the broadest shoulders by and large

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,587

    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    Council tax is a fudge, and the bandings are insanely outdated. We do need a new system but it’s a political hot potato.

    I wonder if Labour might commit to a banding review. That would set the cat among the pigeons, but there is at least an argument that it’s been overdue for about 20 years.
    They should appoint a big beast old Tory to head it up.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,633
    Pagan2 said:

    I would be hugely, hugely surprised to see the single person discount go.

    You’ve seen what the reaction has been to WFA. Going for council tax discount at the same time would be - very brave, considering it often benefits the same group.

    Especially as 34% of private renters are in single person households and 43% of social renters its going to hit them hard and they are hardly the broadest shoulders by and large

    It would only be palatable alongside a band review or general land/housing value tax.

    I agree with the principle; encouraging efficient use of the housing stock is a good thing. But this the wrong way about it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    edited September 9
    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    It's quite possible that the new system could include a 25% discount for singletons; that's in the existing arrangements, and I have seen nothing excluding it.

    One further element of the Proportional Property Tax proposals (which this may be informed by), alongside abolition of SDLT, is that the LL would be responsible for the Council Tax. It is not clear whether that could be altered by a rental contract - as for example bills can be included / excluded. SDLT is the one that may be the lollipop to sell it to generation Boomer.

    There's a possible bomb for student lets, in that students are exempt from Council Tax currently, but as soon as one person in a student house of 4 or 6 becomes a worker, the entire Council Tax for that house is triggered.

    One loophole this could clear up is the habit of Councils of taking an HMO and, if each room has an ensuite or similar facilities, declaring them all to be Band A dwellings and a 6-bed HMO is subject to 6 lots of Council Tax. The actual determination is by the VOA (Valuation Office Agency), but it's very patchy how it works. This is a known issue for decades.

    This is one reason by HMO landlords do not fit ensuites, because it can either make the rooms impossible to let at the cost imposed, or the liability can attach to the LL (there's a list of liable parties in the act, and the Council just work down it). If T does a runner they can just come after the next ones down the list. Rhetorically, anti-LL organisation may say "this is just a business risk you take", but an unnecessarily imposed business is a risk to the business, and a cost to the customer.
  • Any houses being built ? New towns founded ?

    Lots of new homes in Ilford North and South (eg. outside Barkingside tube station and Goodmayes Lizzie Line station).
  • mwadams said:

    Morning all! Bit of a contentious start to the day - maybe we should move off housing policy to lighter topics such as Scottish Independence or AV?

    I’ve got the greatest Scottish independence thread scheduled for next week.
    2014:
    No 55%
    Yes 45%

    :innocent:
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    Sorry - my last post has a little internal manging, but I think it is clear if the missing words are extrapolated.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    edited September 9
    Carnyx said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    Or indeed the rates, before even that. They had to be paid, never mind how many occupants there were. (I can't remember that there was a discount for no occupiers, though: that seems more like a Tory addition to try and preserve as much of the poll tax they could in the council tax.)
    There's a hugely complex history to that around what "unoccupied" means, and whether it means take the furniture out, or the carpets as well, or disconnection or removal of services, or whether there is a viable facility to cook and bathe (which is an element of the definition of "mortgageable"), or if you are doing work, and what that work is.

    There's a similar thing around the START of Council Tax on a newbuild, and Councils trying to start early; if there is no water or sewerage connection they cannot start charging it. A friend had a Council Snooper breaking into his building site in high heels and power suit (on CCTV) to take photos through the windows to see if it was "occupied" so they could start charging CT, and he got so annoyed he made sure the water was physically disconnected for 4 extra months so he had a trump card in the correspondence.

    Traditionally with business rates the owner would remove the roof to prove that it was unoccupied.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    TOPPING said:

    Looking at that chart then obvs Jenrick is difficult to oppose. But he is brittle. They all are with the least of them being Tugendhat and Cleverly in that order. Perhaps it's something to do with the military where you pretty quickly get used to dealing with people not from your background (and no I'm not going to post those clips from "The Guards" in the '60s again).

    Leaders need to be flexible, not brittle (Starmer is brittle, Boris flexible, Thatcher brittle, May brittle, Truss brittle, Blair flexible). Otherwise they will find it difficult to take people, ie the country, with them.

    Although as you can see, flexibility is something quite rare and possessed by Great, if Flawed, Men (although Maggie is an exception and she was great - perhaps a different age)

    I don't think Maggie was great. Strangely I also think Starmer has a fair amount in common with her, in her early period before she went mad. Remains to be seen if Starmer goes mad too, if he lasts that long.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687

    One of the postbox hats has gone a bit wrong in the rain

    It's meant to be a lighthouse!


    You should drop that off to one of the newspapers!! Might be a few quid in it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,946
    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    Why nasty.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    Asset rich, cash poor - you're rich, not poor. I would still tax the asset. If you can't pay but still need the asset - eg because it's your home - you delay payment until the point you don't need it any more and sell.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    edited September 9
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    Or indeed the rates, before even that. They had to be paid, never mind how many occupants there were. (I can't remember that there was a discount for no occupiers, though: that seems more like a Tory addition to try and preserve as much of the poll tax they could in the council tax.)
    There's a hugely complex history to that around what "unoccupied" means, and whether it means take the furniture out, or the carpets as well, or disconnection or removal of services, or whether there is a viable facility to cook and bathe (which is an element of the definition of "mortgageable"), or if you are doing work, and what that work is.

    There's a similar thing around the START of Council Tax on a newbuild, and Councils trying to start early; if there is no water or sewerage connection they cannot start charging it. A friend had a Council Snooper breaking into his building site in high heels and power suit (on CCTV) to take photos through the windows to see if it was "occupied" so they could start charging CT, and he got so annoyed he made sure the water was physically disconnected for 4 extra months so he had a trump card in the correspondence.

    Traditionally with business rates the owner would remove the roof to prove that it was unoccupied.
    Found the link where the start of Council Tax was discussed:

    Yes, lack of a potable water supply definitely makes the house a non-rateable hereditament, there's case law that defines this. Not at all sure that not having the treatment plant connected would count, as there's nothing I can find about any cases where this has been used. It's tricky, as it all depends on the interpretation of the 1969 Rating Act, as updated and also clarified by case law.

    Fitness for habitation is not the legal criterion used, as such, the criterion is whether or not the building can be legitimately defined as a rateable hereditament, which is different. Lack of electricity, for example, doesn't make a building ineligible for Council Tax, nor does the lack of a kitchen.

    You may well have to talk directly to the VOA and see if they can advise, as they almost certainly know the law better than the council.


    Link and two of the many legal cases. It's fun.

    https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/5827-starting-council-tax-house-not-finished/

    https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2011/RA_63_2008_Dec.html
    https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2125.html&query=rgm&method=boolean
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,076

    SKS says he is willing to be unpopular

    Well he has cracked that one in first 60 days

    Pensioners really are a set of whining tossers they had a 9% increase in April and are due a further inflation busting rise next year too.

    I think the means testing of WFA is 100% correct.

    On this policy I am an SKS fan although a wealth tax would have been even better

    On WFA I'm in favour of reducing the recipients somehow but I'd like to see some consideration of people in colder places. My bigger concern is with the impact of withdrawal of the Council Tax single occupier reduction. I know quite a lot of working age renters for whom that could put the cost of the roof over their head out of reach.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983
    FF43 said:

    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    Asset rich, cash poor - you're rich, not poor. I would still tax the asset. If you can't pay but still need the asset - eg because it's your home - you delay payment until the point you don't need it any more and sell.
    Yes, we need a tax system that discourages the holding and hoarding of unproductive assets and encourages economic activity and capital investment. A land value tax is the purest form of this. It could start small, essentially a like for like replacement for council tax, but over time once the process and compliance are well established it could start to take the place of some income tax.

    If designed well it could return more control and discretion over tax and spending to local authorities, encourage migration to lower property tax regions (we see that constantly in the US) and give councils and residents an incentive to welcome new construction.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,579

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Although Harris is still ahead nationally, she has lost momentum and did not enjoy a post convention bounce.



  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    Could @HYUFD end up being vindicated about Harris?

    image
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,687
    Barnesian said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Although Harris is still ahead nationally, she has lost momentum and did not enjoy a post convention bounce.



    Doesn't look enough to me to win. Maybe the debate will change things. But as it stands its Trump 2.0 I think.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,575
    edited September 9
    Barnesian said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Although Harris is still ahead nationally, she has lost momentum and did not enjoy a post convention bounce.

    The NYT poll has Harris behind nationally. The same poll at this stage of the last campaign has Biden 8 points ahead.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,590
    TimS said:

    FF43 said:

    mwadams said:

    Pagan2 said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x.
    If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
    I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
    Asset rich, cash poor - you're rich, not poor. I would still tax the asset. If you can't pay but still need the asset - eg because it's your home - you delay payment until the point you don't need it any more and sell.
    Yes, we need a tax system that discourages the holding and hoarding of unproductive assets and encourages economic activity and capital investment. A land value tax is the purest form of this. It could start small, essentially a like for like replacement for council tax, but over time once the process and compliance are well established it could start to take the place of some income tax.

    If designed well it could return more control and discretion over tax and spending to local authorities, encourage migration to lower property tax regions (we see that constantly in the US) and give councils and residents an incentive to welcome new construction.
    Ha, if I had a £ for every new tax which was intended to replace another but ended up just more on top.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,274
    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    MattW said:

    Carnyx said:

    mwadams said:

    MattW said:

    First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.

    IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.

    The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.

    The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs.
    https://archive.ph/GwBzD

    Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s

    I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.

    The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact

    As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
    Or indeed the rates, before even that. They had to be paid, never mind how many occupants there were. (I can't remember that there was a discount for no occupiers, though: that seems more like a Tory addition to try and preserve as much of the poll tax they could in the council tax.)
    There's a hugely complex history to that around what "unoccupied" means, and whether it means take the furniture out, or the carpets as well, or disconnection or removal of services, or whether there is a viable facility to cook and bathe (which is an element of the definition of "mortgageable"), or if you are doing work, and what that work is.

    There's a similar thing around the START of Council Tax on a newbuild, and Councils trying to start early; if there is no water or sewerage connection they cannot start charging it. A friend had a Council Snooper breaking into his building site in high heels and power suit (on CCTV) to take photos through the windows to see if it was "occupied" so they could start charging CT, and he got so annoyed he made sure the water was physically disconnected for 4 extra months so he had a trump card in the correspondence.

    Traditionally with business rates the owner would remove the roof to prove that it was unoccupied.
    ..or start a fire?...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,590
    nico679 said:

    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .

    Quite, it would be WFA with added bonus of actually unfair as well as politically poisonous.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,579
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.

    Trump 1.9
    Kamala 2.2

    The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:-
    Dem 1.37
    Rep 3.6
    This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.

    It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
    There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke @Driver @williamglenn @Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.

    Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.

    Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
    RCP has Trump winning Pennsylvania but Harris still narrowly winning the EC as she holds Georgia
    RCP has their average for Pennsylvania as a tie but give it to Trump for some reason.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,274
    maaarsh said:

    nico679 said:

    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .

    Quite, it would be WFA with added bonus of actually unfair as well as politically poisonous.
    For pensioners living alone it would be a double whammy of losing WFA and hundreds of pounds more . It would also effect those of a working age. If Labour want to poll sub 10% then this policy is the way to go !
  • mercatormercator Posts: 815
    Barnesian said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Although Harris is still ahead nationally, she has lost momentum and did not enjoy a post convention bounce.



    Bounce is the result of increased exposure which she was getting plenty of anyway, so that's as expected.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

    The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.

    Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.

    They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.

    They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.

    I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,579

    Barnesian said:

    BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.

    @HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.

    Although Harris is still ahead nationally, she has lost momentum and did not enjoy a post convention bounce.

    The NYT poll has Harris behind nationally. The same poll at this stage of the last campaign has Biden 8 points ahead.
    That's one poll. My graph is an exponential moving average (weight 0.1) of all polls in survey order. The MOE of a single poll is of the order of 3%.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    nico679 said:

    maaarsh said:

    nico679 said:

    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .

    Quite, it would be WFA with added bonus of actually unfair as well as politically poisonous.
    For pensioners living alone it would be a double whammy of losing WFA and hundreds of pounds more . It would also effect those of a working age. If Labour want to poll sub 10% then this policy is the way to go !
    There are other things in play too.

    Pensioners who get Pension Credit get their Council Tax paid. Pension credit applies to incomes under ~£220 per week iirc.

    There's also something called the "Council Tax Reduction Scheme", which gives up to I think 100% off for people on low income.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777
    nico679 said:

    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .

    It feels like one of those policies floated before the budget to set expectations that isn't ever being considered.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,366
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

    The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.

    Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.

    They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.

    They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.

    I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
    If, and I know it's a huge if, Labour makes reasonable progress on cutting legal migration and sorting out the 'small boats' issue, then I think it's likely that quite a few w/c Reform voters could switch to Labour rather than the Tories.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,104
    edited September 9
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

    The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.

    Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.

    They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.

    They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.

    I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
    I think the question there may be:

    The previous Government lost in measure several elements of their voter coalition from 2019 - which I might term Brexiteers, pro-Boris and anti-Corbyn. Or perhaps Red Wall, Blue Wall and One Nation.

    These were a ride-three-horses-at-once temporary circus act by Boris playing his Buster Keaton character.
    https://youtu.be/frYIj2FGmMA?t=55

    How many of these can they get back? How many do they need to get back?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    The panic when Trump gets a lead is palpable and hilarious. It's almost enough for me to want him to win

    ALMOST, @kinabalu, ALMOST
  • FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

    The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.

    Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.

    They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.

    They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.

    I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
    2019-24 showed that it is certainly possible for a giant toad squatting across all of British politics to be utterly squashed within a single term. But it requires a mixture of bad luck (Covid, Ukraine), bad timing (Conservatives having been in office for over a decade) and bad judgement (where to begin?). When those on the right make excited noises about how unpopular Starmer already is, they forget how mega-unpopular Johnson/Truss/Sunak were.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,496
    FF43 said:

    algarkirk said:

    Heathener said:

    Hi everyone,

    It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.

    5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.

    The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.

    The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?

    Really, they’re not very relevant.

    It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.

    All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.

    If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.

    The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.

    Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.

    They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.

    They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.

    I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
    Working out what the % chances are about the result in 2028/9 is a difficult question. The equivalent time (2 months plus a bit) following the last election was mid February 2020, when the Tories has a 15+ point lead over Labour and we were about to descend into a permacrisis (March 2020) from which we have never emerged. Its usefulness as a guide to the 2024 result was Nil.

    At some point there will start to be a good deal of interest in how fragile is the position of all major parties: the Tories and SNP because they have so little left, and LD and Labour because their base is incredibly vulnerable, Reform because it can split the votes of others but can't win.

    This means that the only thing we really know about 2028/9 is that it is going to be psephologically absorbing and we haven't a clue about the outcome. It would be a bonus if it is politically/policywise absorbing too.

    WRT tactics, Labour's decision on WFA is puzzling. I would expect them to say 'we had hard choices about this winter and decided to invent a Hedge Fund tax, raising £2 billion from some discreet offices in Mayfair so that pensioners won't freeze to death'. Odd.
  • Leon said:

    The panic when Trump gets a lead is palpable and hilarious. It's almost enough for me to want him to win

    ALMOST, @kinabalu, ALMOST

    What panic?
  • MattW said:

    nico679 said:

    maaarsh said:

    nico679 said:

    I can’t see the single person discount going . The added cost to people would be huge and the furore would be even worse than the WFA .

    Reeves and Starmer would be insane to go for this .

    Quite, it would be WFA with added bonus of actually unfair as well as politically poisonous.
    For pensioners living alone it would be a double whammy of losing WFA and hundreds of pounds more . It would also effect those of a working age. If Labour want to poll sub 10% then this policy is the way to go !
    There are other things in play too.

    Pensioners who get Pension Credit get their Council Tax paid. Pension credit applies to incomes under ~£220 per week iirc.

    There's also something called the "Council Tax Reduction Scheme", which gives up to I think 100% off for people on low income.
    Who pays council tax discount? It might be a consideration depending whether government or local authorities foot the bill.
This discussion has been closed.