amusing to see people slagging off Rings of Power on the previous thread on the basis that it is 'woke'.
This is of course utter bollocks. There is nothing woke about it at all. Moreover most of those criticising its accuracy clearly don't know their Tolkein beyond the Peter Jackson films - which contained huge numbers of inaccuracies themselves.
Rings of Power has just been renewed for its third season and is going from strength to strength. For most Tolkein fans who move beyond just Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit it is a great series filling in a lot of detail on Tolkein's lore. The 'go woke, go broke' crowd are just bitter because they weren't able to bring it down with their whining about non-white characters.
It hasn't been "renewed" Amazon are contractually obliged to deliver 50 hours of content or they face a huge break fee with the Tolkein estate. It also isn't going from strength to strength, it opened with around half of the viewers that the first season opener did and it has the same downwards viewing trend the first season did which indicates that by the end only around 20% of people who started the first episode of the first season will make it to the end of the second season. It's a disaster but Amazon have no choice but to continue, if they could cancel it and not end up paying the Tolkein estate hundreds of millions in break up fees I'm certain they would do so.
I think the only saving grace for it is that the next season isn't already written like season 2 was before filming so they can start to take fan feedback into account and sack the terrible writers and bring in actual lore experts that won't give us stupid concepts like Orc wives and babies or Galadriel thirsting after Sauron even after she fucking knows it's Sauron. I think there's been an admission within Amazon studios that they need to change direction on the story and lore so I expect season 3 will be much closer to what people expected from the beginning.
I actually agree with most of this (I think the writing is terrible and on a par with the final season of Game of Thrones - Bret Devereaux has a good write-up of all the issues here and elsewhere), but the Orc babies thing isn't a stupid concept. It's how Orcs reproduced canonically (the "growing from the mud" thing was a Peter Jackson invention). It's how you could have "Bolg, son of Azog" in The Hobbit. Orcs reproduce "after the manner of Elves and Men," and Tolkien stated in a letter that "there must have been orc-women"
The terrible writing simply matches that for Game Of Thrones, Foundation and the Star Wars films.
They keep riding billion dollar properties into the ground. Because reasons. And having some good bits in there, somewhere, isn't an excuse.
Modern writing to me suffers a bit too much from indulging in audience fantasies/wants rather than focussing on telling a story.
A lot of franchises have gone the way of reading like bad fan fiction and I think that’s a product of the lack of restraint. Sometimes you don’t need to write to cater for the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” or “let’s come up with 100 theories for why this happened” crowd. Let people fill in the gaps themselves - that makes the stories more engaging and enjoyable.
As a general rule I don't watch films made (I use the term loosely) from books I've enjoyed. I've found I ended up irritated, disappointed, or both.
Clint Eastwood was told, to his face, that he was a bad film maker. Because the film Firefox followed the book *too* closely.
Some rather fun stuff came out about how the writers and execs on the Harry Potter films *hated* being forced to keep reasonably close to the books.
Zac Snyder's Watchmen suffered a similar problem. He followed much of the original Alan Moore Comic book almost frame for frame (although he did make some major changes to the nature of the threat) but it was just too close and made it rather sterile.
More that the studio didn't quite know what to do with a dark, anti-superhero story.
Then came The Boys
The Boys, Preacher, The Expanse. I find it hard to agree with this idea that we are not in a time of great TV.
Unfortunately the most recent season of The Boys was /terrible/.
On AppleTV - I did enjoy Severance. The next season is apparently going to be the most expensive TV Apple has ever made which worries me - Season 1 the writers did a lot within the constraints imposed by their premise & budget. I suspect without those constraints the writing might fall apart. We’ll find out in January...
Most of the Severance season 1 was filmed in what looked like a Doctor Who set.
Which was great! The whole backrooms horror aesthetic of the brightly lit 50s business office with the false ceilings and anonymous corridors worked really well imo.
I have a nasty feeling they’re going to go hog wild with the budget & lose everything that made Season 1 work.
It feels like the direction of travel is moving in favour of Cleverly
You mean the membership is FINALLY getting smacked upside the head by reality?
He is supposed to be the one with the best judgment of the candidates and yet is the same person who at a Downing St reception thought it a good idea to talk about drugging his wife with Rohypnol, and thought if its only a little bit of the drug its not really illegal.
Its not quite Maggie v Hezza.
Are we all such pearl clutchers now? Was he seriously going to do so or encourage others to? Some people, on the left and right do love to jump on the outrage bus.
Utterly OT, but I noticed the other day that Olympias (mother of Alexander) was a Maenad, a follower of Dionysus. Makes sense she'd be into the god whose followers embark on drunken murder frenzies.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
amusing to see people slagging off Rings of Power on the previous thread on the basis that it is 'woke'.
This is of course utter bollocks. There is nothing woke about it at all. Moreover most of those criticising its accuracy clearly don't know their Tolkein beyond the Peter Jackson films - which contained huge numbers of inaccuracies themselves.
Rings of Power has just been renewed for its third season and is going from strength to strength. For most Tolkein fans who move beyond just Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit it is a great series filling in a lot of detail on Tolkein's lore. The 'go woke, go broke' crowd are just bitter because they weren't able to bring it down with their whining about non-white characters.
It hasn't been "renewed" Amazon are contractually obliged to deliver 50 hours of content or they face a huge break fee with the Tolkein estate. It also isn't going from strength to strength, it opened with around half of the viewers that the first season opener did and it has the same downwards viewing trend the first season did which indicates that by the end only around 20% of people who started the first episode of the first season will make it to the end of the second season. It's a disaster but Amazon have no choice but to continue, if they could cancel it and not end up paying the Tolkein estate hundreds of millions in break up fees I'm certain they would do so.
I think the only saving grace for it is that the next season isn't already written like season 2 was before filming so they can start to take fan feedback into account and sack the terrible writers and bring in actual lore experts that won't give us stupid concepts like Orc wives and babies or Galadriel thirsting after Sauron even after she fucking knows it's Sauron. I think there's been an admission within Amazon studios that they need to change direction on the story and lore so I expect season 3 will be much closer to what people expected from the beginning.
I actually agree with most of this (I think the writing is terrible and on a par with the final season of Game of Thrones - Bret Devereaux has a good write-up of all the issues here and elsewhere), but the Orc babies thing isn't a stupid concept. It's how Orcs reproduced canonically (the "growing from the mud" thing was a Peter Jackson invention). It's how you could have "Bolg, son of Azog" in The Hobbit. Orcs reproduce "after the manner of Elves and Men," and Tolkien stated in a letter that "there must have been orc-women"
The terrible writing simply matches that for Game Of Thrones, Foundation and the Star Wars films.
They keep riding billion dollar properties into the ground. Because reasons. And having some good bits in there, somewhere, isn't an excuse.
Modern writing to me suffers a bit too much from indulging in audience fantasies/wants rather than focussing on telling a story.
A lot of franchises have gone the way of reading like bad fan fiction and I think that’s a product of the lack of restraint. Sometimes you don’t need to write to cater for the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” or “let’s come up with 100 theories for why this happened” crowd. Let people fill in the gaps themselves - that makes the stories more engaging and enjoyable.
As a general rule I don't watch films made (I use the term loosely) from books I've enjoyed. I've found I ended up irritated, disappointed, or both.
Clint Eastwood was told, to his face, that he was a bad film maker. Because the film Firefox followed the book *too* closely.
Some rather fun stuff came out about how the writers and execs on the Harry Potter films *hated* being forced to keep reasonably close to the books.
Zac Snyder's Watchmen suffered a similar problem. He followed much of the original Alan Moore Comic book almost frame for frame (although he did make some major changes to the nature of the threat) but it was just too close and made it rather sterile.
More that the studio didn't quite know what to do with a dark, anti-superhero story.
Then came The Boys
The Boys, Preacher, The Expanse. I find it hard to agree with this idea that we are not in a time of great TV.
Unfortunately the most recent season of The Boys was /terrible/.
On AppleTV - I did enjoy Severance. The next season is apparently going to be the most expensive TV Apple has ever made which worries me - Season 1 the writers did a lot within the constraints imposed by their premise & budget. I suspect without those constraints the writing might fall apart. We’ll find out in January...
Most of the Severance season 1 was filmed in what looked like a Doctor Who set.
Which was great! The whole backrooms horror aesthetic of the brightly lit 50s business office with the false ceilings and anonymous corridors worked really well imo.
I have a nasty feeling they’re going to go hog wild with the budget & lose everything that made Season 1 work.
I agree, I was just wondering how they might spoil that by getting out the chequebook.
It feels like the direction of travel is moving in favour of Cleverly
You mean the membership is FINALLY getting smacked upside the head by reality?
He is supposed to be the one with the best judgment of the candidates and yet is the same person who at a Downing St reception thought it a good idea to talk about drugging his wife with Rohypnol, and thought if its only a little bit of the drug its not really illegal.
Its not quite Maggie v Hezza.
Are we all such pearl clutchers now? Was he seriously going to do so or encourage others to? Some people, on the left and right do love to jump on the outrage bus.
Unfortunately for Cleverly that joke has greater salience in the light of recent French legal events.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
Best content by far. Not sure the stage walk-about helped him delivery wise, but he's the only one with a clear diagnosis of the question and the answer. Cleverley seemed think he personally was the only change needed, and Tiddy Tom just wants you to know he used to be in the army.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
Seen through you eyes from the right but not in the hall according to Sam Coates of Sky who said their response was much more positive to Cleverly
It’s in the case of the listener, isn’t it? He’s saying what the faithful want to hear. Corbyn is an instructive precedent (also a pretty mediocre orator).
Slick as JD Vance's presentation might be, what he actually said was an inverted pyramid of piffle.
I've thought for a while that he's potentially more dangerous than Trump. While he lacks the ability to rabble rouse, he's a lot smarter, and would likely be more effective at pushing radical policies through, if he had a majority in Congress.
It feels like the direction of travel is moving in favour of Cleverly
You mean the membership is FINALLY getting smacked upside the head by reality?
He is supposed to be the one with the best judgment of the candidates and yet is the same person who at a Downing St reception thought it a good idea to talk about drugging his wife with Rohypnol, and thought if its only a little bit of the drug its not really illegal.
Its not quite Maggie v Hezza.
Are we all such pearl clutchers now? Was he seriously going to do so or encourage others to? Some people, on the left and right do love to jump on the outrage bus.
Unfortunately for Cleverly that joke has greater salience in the light of recent French legal events.
Only if you invented a time machine in the interlude.
But looks they just have to go through this phase and then learn (yet again) the lessons.
No, Jenrick was far more articulate and charismatic than Starmer let alone IDS.
He is offering clear rightwing redmeat to reunite the right, you may not like it and I still think Tugendhat is a better bet to win back Tory voters lost to Labour and the LDs but Jenrick's message will have appeal. especially in the redwall
amusing to see people slagging off Rings of Power on the previous thread on the basis that it is 'woke'.
This is of course utter bollocks. There is nothing woke about it at all. Moreover most of those criticising its accuracy clearly don't know their Tolkein beyond the Peter Jackson films - which contained huge numbers of inaccuracies themselves.
Rings of Power has just been renewed for its third season and is going from strength to strength. For most Tolkein fans who move beyond just Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit it is a great series filling in a lot of detail on Tolkein's lore. The 'go woke, go broke' crowd are just bitter because they weren't able to bring it down with their whining about non-white characters.
It hasn't been "renewed" Amazon are contractually obliged to deliver 50 hours of content or they face a huge break fee with the Tolkein estate. It also isn't going from strength to strength, it opened with around half of the viewers that the first season opener did and it has the same downwards viewing trend the first season did which indicates that by the end only around 20% of people who started the first episode of the first season will make it to the end of the second season. It's a disaster but Amazon have no choice but to continue, if they could cancel it and not end up paying the Tolkein estate hundreds of millions in break up fees I'm certain they would do so.
I think the only saving grace for it is that the next season isn't already written like season 2 was before filming so they can start to take fan feedback into account and sack the terrible writers and bring in actual lore experts that won't give us stupid concepts like Orc wives and babies or Galadriel thirsting after Sauron even after she fucking knows it's Sauron. I think there's been an admission within Amazon studios that they need to change direction on the story and lore so I expect season 3 will be much closer to what people expected from the beginning.
I actually agree with most of this (I think the writing is terrible and on a par with the final season of Game of Thrones - Bret Devereaux has a good write-up of all the issues here and elsewhere), but the Orc babies thing isn't a stupid concept. It's how Orcs reproduced canonically (the "growing from the mud" thing was a Peter Jackson invention). It's how you could have "Bolg, son of Azog" in The Hobbit. Orcs reproduce "after the manner of Elves and Men," and Tolkien stated in a letter that "there must have been orc-women"
The terrible writing simply matches that for Game Of Thrones, Foundation and the Star Wars films.
They keep riding billion dollar properties into the ground. Because reasons. And having some good bits in there, somewhere, isn't an excuse.
Modern writing to me suffers a bit too much from indulging in audience fantasies/wants rather than focussing on telling a story.
A lot of franchises have gone the way of reading like bad fan fiction and I think that’s a product of the lack of restraint. Sometimes you don’t need to write to cater for the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” or “let’s come up with 100 theories for why this happened” crowd. Let people fill in the gaps themselves - that makes the stories more engaging and enjoyable.
As a general rule I don't watch films made (I use the term loosely) from books I've enjoyed. I've found I ended up irritated, disappointed, or both.
Clint Eastwood was told, to his face, that he was a bad film maker. Because the film Firefox followed the book *too* closely.
Some rather fun stuff came out about how the writers and execs on the Harry Potter films *hated* being forced to keep reasonably close to the books.
Zac Snyder's Watchmen suffered a similar problem. He followed much of the original Alan Moore Comic book almost frame for frame (although he did make some major changes to the nature of the threat) but it was just too close and made it rather sterile.
More that the studio didn't quite know what to do with a dark, anti-superhero story.
Then came The Boys
The Boys, Preacher, The Expanse. I find it hard to agree with this idea that we are not in a time of great TV.
Unfortunately the most recent season of The Boys was /terrible/.
On AppleTV - I did enjoy Severance. The next season is apparently going to be the most expensive TV Apple has ever made which worries me - Season 1 the writers did a lot within the constraints imposed by their premise & budget. I suspect without those constraints the writing might fall apart. We’ll find out in January...
Most of the Severance season 1 was filmed in what looked like a Doctor Who set.
Which was great! The whole backrooms horror aesthetic of the brightly lit 50s business office with the false ceilings and anonymous corridors worked really well imo.
I have a nasty feeling they’re going to go hog wild with the budget & lose everything that made Season 1 work.
I agree, I was just wondering how they might spoil that by getting out the chequebook.
Grandiose sets in the outside world? Large amounts of CGI?
They’re spending £20million per episode, so it must be going somewhere...
edit: Some discussion on Reddit suggests the show is not well run with constant reshoots & the script is never nailed down for the whole season so if they come up with a neat idea in episode 7 that means they have to reshoot half of episode 3 then that’s what they do.
Plus the writers strike meant re-hiring everyone & rebuilding all the sets etc.
So part of it is just being profligate with the budget apparently.
I don't think Cleverly will make the final two. Jenrick has the numbers among MPs, and probably with sufficient comfort to enable him to pick his opponent through tactical voting. This conference has probably convinced his team that his opponent shouldn't be Cleverly.
The problem is that, as with Rishi Sunak, the members don’t particularly like him, and are likely to vote for whoever is his opponent. That’s even more likely to happen, if it looks like the voting rounds conducted as a stitch-up by Jenrick supporters.
Slick as JD Vance's presentation might be, what he actually said was an inverted pyramid of piffle.
I've thought for a while that he's potentially more dangerous than Trump. While he lacks the ability to rabble rouse, he's a lot smarter, and would likely be more effective at pushing radical policies through, if he had a majority in Congress.
And would be only the invocation of the 25th away from the Presidency.
Slick as JD Vance's presentation might be, what he actually said was an inverted pyramid of piffle.
I've thought for a while that he's potentially more dangerous than Trump. While he lacks the ability to rabble rouse, he's a lot smarter, and would likely be more effective at pushing radical policies through, if he had a majority in Congress.
Yes, if Trump loses Vance a solid bet for GOP nomination in 2028
It was a very 'Thought for the Day' opening. This is a more traditional leaders conference speech than Tugenhadt's. Personally I prefer it as it comes across as more leader like but I can see why others might find it dull. Big points for the Warhammer figures quip though.
I need to see photos of some of his models and how fluffy his lists are.
Mr. F, got to admit I'd forgotten about that. Fair enough. There was one book I stopped reading a while ago that had a lot of grim stuff in, to the extent it didn't seem to serve the story so much as just be there for shock value.
What scripts has Abercrombie written? It's astonishing that Benioff and Weiss did such a poor job. They should've just handed over to someone else if they didn't care to actually finish the series properly. Better to hand over than ruin something that was so good.
The irony is their buggering of the end of GoT is likely what cost them their Star Wars trilogy (although there are a ton of cancelled SW projects).
I get that Jorge Ancrath was under the influence of an evil wizard, but it was still offputting. It's like when I read the first book of KJ Parker's Scavenger trilogy, only to have the protagonist, Kjartan, take part in the sack of city, and hurl a baby through an open doorway into a burning building.
I like war stories, and expect a degree of ruthlessness. But, I don't want to read a fictionalised version of Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger.
I think that script-writing was an earlier part of Abercrombie's career.
The problem with Benioff & Weiss is not so much that they were bad writers, as that they were lazy writers.
I don't think Cleverly will make the final two. Jenrick has the numbers among MPs, and probably with sufficient comfort to enable him to pick his opponent through tactical voting. This conference has probably convinced his team that his opponent shouldn't be Cleverly.
The problem is that, as with Rishi Sunak, the members don’t particularly like him, and are likely to vote for whoever is his opponent. That’s even more likely to happen, if it looks like the voting rounds conducted as a stitch-up by Jenrick supporters.
Is the attack line that he's an establishment stitch up or that he's a cosy right wing comfort choice for the members.
It’s in the case of the listener, isn’t it? He’s saying what the faithful want to hear. Corbyn is an instructive precedent (also a pretty mediocre orator).
Corbyn was a better orator than May and got a hung parliament against the odds in 2017, even if when facing the more charismatic Boris he was heavily defeated in 2019
I don't think Cleverly will make the final two. Jenrick has the numbers among MPs, and probably with sufficient comfort to enable him to pick his opponent through tactical voting. This conference has probably convinced his team that his opponent shouldn't be Cleverly.
Yes - I see that - but does he have the numbers though?
This team won't want Badenoch either (unless she balls up her speech) and they won't be able to engineer a Tugendhat path through to the final two, surely?
You're assuming the last round (Jenrick 33, Badenoch 28, Tugendhat and Cleverly 21 each, Stride 16 and out) actually reflects each candidate's level of support.
It is probable Jenrick votes helped ease Patel out by propping up Stride, then propped up Tugendhat who was at risk after round 1. My view is Jenrick has a team that can count, and has more numbers up his sleeve than he's showed in the first two rounds. Remember, you can't lose momentum in these - you mustn't put in your best performance in the first round, then appear to be on the slide.
I also think Badenoch has had a very poor conference. The maternity leave thing absolutely played into MPs' concern about her - that she's ill-disciplined, and comes out with silly stuff to get a rise out of people. Badenoch potentially losing MPs also plays into Jenrick's hands in terms of the numbers game.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
Seen through you eyes from the right but not in the hall according to Sam Coates of Sky who said their response was much more positive to Cleverly
The hall who bother to go to conference will be mainly One Nation types, members in the sticks will be the ones voting
I don't think Cleverly will make the final two. Jenrick has the numbers among MPs, and probably with sufficient comfort to enable him to pick his opponent through tactical voting. This conference has probably convinced his team that his opponent shouldn't be Cleverly.
The problem is that, as with Rishi Sunak, the members don’t particularly like him, and are likely to vote for whoever is his opponent. That’s even more likely to happen, if it looks like the voting rounds conducted as a stitch-up by Jenrick supporters.
Is the attack line that he's an establishment stitch up or that he's a cosy right wing comfort choice for the members.
It was a very 'Thought for the Day' opening. This is a more traditional leaders conference speech than Tugenhadt's. Personally I prefer it as it comes across as more leader like but I can see why others might find it dull. Big points for the Warhammer figures quip though.
I need to see photos of some of his models and how fluffy his lists are.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
Seen through you eyes from the right but not in the hall according to Sam Coates of Sky who said their response was much more positive to Cleverly
The hall who bother to go to conference will be mainly One Nation types, members in the sticks will be the ones voting
Alternatively, the members in the sticks have er, upped-sticks and gone to Reform.
Best speech so far I think given by Jenrick. Articulate and clear and firm rightwing 'red meat' on immigration and border control, new homes and infrastructure and economic growth not just net zero
Seen through you eyes from the right but not in the hall according to Sam Coates of Sky who said their response was much more positive to Cleverly
The hall who bother to go to conference will be mainly One Nation types, members in the sticks will be the ones voting
Alternatively, the members in the sticks have er, upped-sticks and gone to Reform.
The members polls were clear pre conference Jenrick and Badenoch were in front
After that there has always been vested interests limiting what the executive could do.
Pah! Fah! These Johnny Come Latelies with their Magna Cartas
What about the Witan? eh? eh?
I think we should go back to the Bible and set up a Graven Images Commission, with a wide-ranging brief to seek out idols of the heavens above and the earth below. Should keep them busy...
Slick as JD Vance's presentation might be, what he actually said was an inverted pyramid of piffle.
I've thought for a while that he's potentially more dangerous than Trump. While he lacks the ability to rabble rouse, he's a lot smarter, and would likely be more effective at pushing radical policies through, if he had a majority in Congress.
Not so smart that he can rememebr all the lies he told.
And then gets fact-checked on them after the debate. On abortion: "I never supported a national ban."
It was a very 'Thought for the Day' opening. This is a more traditional leaders conference speech than Tugenhadt's. Personally I prefer it as it comes across as more leader like but I can see why others might find it dull. Big points for the Warhammer figures quip though.
I need to see photos of some of his models and how fluffy his lists are.
After that there has always been vested interests limiting what the executive could do.
Pah! Fah! These Johnny Come Latelies with their Magna Cartas
What about the Witan? eh? eh?
I think we should go back to the Bible and set up a Graven Images Commission, with a wide-ranging brief to seek out idols of the heavens above and the earth below. Should keep them busy...
The ten commandments were definitely the slippery end of the wedge - regulations written in stone....
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
In government but not in power - that's her point.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
If you have a house in poor-ish condition, then the resale price in many parts of the country means that you end up with enough money for a new flat - but the equity release can often be so poor as to make it not worth while.
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
Surely an ideological political would change the law. There needs to be another name for carrying on the politics of opposition while in office.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Stamp Duty increases that amount of money that you lose through transaction costs, so it adds more friction and would discourage people from downsizing.
If you're buying a house for £350k, say, it's an extra £5k that you lose in the transaction.
amusing to see people slagging off Rings of Power on the previous thread on the basis that it is 'woke'.
This is of course utter bollocks. There is nothing woke about it at all. Moreover most of those criticising its accuracy clearly don't know their Tolkein beyond the Peter Jackson films - which contained huge numbers of inaccuracies themselves.
Rings of Power has just been renewed for its third season and is going from strength to strength. For most Tolkein fans who move beyond just Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit it is a great series filling in a lot of detail on Tolkein's lore. The 'go woke, go broke' crowd are just bitter because they weren't able to bring it down with their whining about non-white characters.
It hasn't been "renewed" Amazon are contractually obliged to deliver 50 hours of content or they face a huge break fee with the Tolkein estate. It also isn't going from strength to strength, it opened with around half of the viewers that the first season opener did and it has the same downwards viewing trend the first season did which indicates that by the end only around 20% of people who started the first episode of the first season will make it to the end of the second season. It's a disaster but Amazon have no choice but to continue, if they could cancel it and not end up paying the Tolkein estate hundreds of millions in break up fees I'm certain they would do so.
I think the only saving grace for it is that the next season isn't already written like season 2 was before filming so they can start to take fan feedback into account and sack the terrible writers and bring in actual lore experts that won't give us stupid concepts like Orc wives and babies or Galadriel thirsting after Sauron even after she fucking knows it's Sauron. I think there's been an admission within Amazon studios that they need to change direction on the story and lore so I expect season 3 will be much closer to what people expected from the beginning.
I actually agree with most of this (I think the writing is terrible and on a par with the final season of Game of Thrones - Bret Devereaux has a good write-up of all the issues here and elsewhere), but the Orc babies thing isn't a stupid concept. It's how Orcs reproduced canonically (the "growing from the mud" thing was a Peter Jackson invention). It's how you could have "Bolg, son of Azog" in The Hobbit. Orcs reproduce "after the manner of Elves and Men," and Tolkien stated in a letter that "there must have been orc-women"
The terrible writing simply matches that for Game Of Thrones, Foundation and the Star Wars films.
They keep riding billion dollar properties into the ground. Because reasons. And having some good bits in there, somewhere, isn't an excuse.
Modern writing to me suffers a bit too much from indulging in audience fantasies/wants rather than focussing on telling a story.
A lot of franchises have gone the way of reading like bad fan fiction and I think that’s a product of the lack of restraint. Sometimes you don’t need to write to cater for the “wouldn’t it be cool if…” or “let’s come up with 100 theories for why this happened” crowd. Let people fill in the gaps themselves - that makes the stories more engaging and enjoyable.
As a general rule I don't watch films made (I use the term loosely) from books I've enjoyed. I've found I ended up irritated, disappointed, or both.
Clint Eastwood was told, to his face, that he was a bad film maker. Because the film Firefox followed the book *too* closely.
Some rather fun stuff came out about how the writers and execs on the Harry Potter films *hated* being forced to keep reasonably close to the books.
Zac Snyder's Watchmen suffered a similar problem. He followed much of the original Alan Moore Comic book almost frame for frame (although he did make some major changes to the nature of the threat) but it was just too close and made it rather sterile.
More that the studio didn't quite know what to do with a dark, anti-superhero story.
Then came The Boys
The Boys, Preacher, The Expanse. I find it hard to agree with this idea that we are not in a time of great TV.
Unfortunately the most recent season of The Boys was /terrible/.
On AppleTV - I did enjoy Severance. The next season is apparently going to be the most expensive TV Apple has ever made which worries me - Season 1 the writers did a lot within the constraints imposed by their premise & budget. I suspect without those constraints the writing might fall apart. We’ll find out in January...
Most of the Severance season 1 was filmed in what looked like a Doctor Who set.
We've just started watching "Leverage: redemption", which is set on what looks suspiciously like the NCIS: New Orleans set.
Leverage, and Leverage: Redemption are both really pleasant series. One of those where the actors really look like they're having fun filming it; particularly Beth Riesgraf as the thief Parker.
Incidentally, the original Leverage ended after five series, and it was brought back nearly a decade later with some of the same characters as "Leverage: Redemption". It's pretty much as good as the original: ridiculous, but fun. That's quite a trick IMO.
Not for me, I would vote for Jenrick over Cleverly I think but Tugendhat first
Cleverley is pitching a central positive position that could appeal to both Reform and LD voters and unite the party. So he's bound to lose. Though his odds are now shortening further.
"No mergers, no deals with Reform".
From a LD perspective I hope he loses. But If I were a Tory I'd vote for him.
He's quite obviously the best choice for winning seats back at the next GE and has some interesting ideas like SDLT changes. Sense of humour and does not appear to be gratuitously malevolent or weird.
Big opportunity for the Conservatives.
Also he mentioned the bicycle as a great British invention (debatable). Very hard to not to like him tbh.
"Let's be more normal"
He's sticking the pin into Tugendhat and Jenrick who have both had recent periods with no option other than to ride one .
It was a very 'Thought for the Day' opening. This is a more traditional leaders conference speech than Tugenhadt's. Personally I prefer it as it comes across as more leader like but I can see why others might find it dull. Big points for the Warhammer figures quip though.
I need to see photos of some of his models and how fluffy his lists are.
The people who do commission painting normally paint to a higher standard, so those will have been painted by himself (and they're better than mine).
Has anyone checked if he bought all the figures himself? If donated, that could be a large sum!
"Hello Mr Future PM. I have 100 full painted Dreadnoughts for you. Just need your signature on this parchment. Well, actually some drops of blood would be ideal..."
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
I suspect that is why some want to leave the ECHR
Well then they should have done it. No one was stopping them as they had a large majority. They didn't do it because they thought it would be electoral poison and a good number of their MPs didn't want it. It wasn't a cabal of judges and civil servants that stopped them.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
His point is that there needs to be a way to exempt people downsizing from stamp duty - which is difficult because one relates to sqft or number of bedrooms, and the other to price. Downsizing needs to be encouraged within the tax system.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
It's a disincentive to move when you don't absolutely need to.
OK - so disincentive. That I understand.
His phrase was a little different "...for 35 years there are four unused bedrooms in that house. They are locked into it by the cost of Stamp Duty. If they were able to downsize ...",
That's a mahoosive exaggeration by Cleverly - 1or 2 or 5% preventing moving house for half a lifetime.
Also he didn't say where he would get the £15bn or so to pay for it from, and how he would prevent it being mainly a tax cut for the wealthy.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
His point is that there needs to be a way to exempt people downsizing from stamp duty - which is difficult because one relates to sqft or number of bedrooms, and the other to price. Downsizing needs to be encouraged within the tax system.
The tax should be abolished altogether.
There is no reason to be taxing mobility. Taxes should be consistently applied, only taxing those who are mobile is perverse and discourages mobility. Those who are still in the same house they lived in last year, or for the past 35 years, should pay the same taxes as those who've moved in this year.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
It was a very 'Thought for the Day' opening. This is a more traditional leaders conference speech than Tugenhadt's. Personally I prefer it as it comes across as more leader like but I can see why others might find it dull. Big points for the Warhammer figures quip though.
I need to see photos of some of his models and how fluffy his lists are.
The people who do commission painting normally paint to a higher standard, so those will have been painted by himself (and they're better than mine).
Has anyone checked if he bought all the figures himself? If donated, that could be a large sum!
"Hello Mr Future PM. I have 100 full painted Dreadnoughts for you. Just need your signature on this parchment. Well, actually some drops of blood would be ideal..."
Some people are highly motivated to collect the rarer old models. Find the right model, new in box, could be a very special gift.
Badenoch is exactly the type of ideological politician that has fouled up government for the past 14 years. "If the law says that the government can't deport a foreign child molester then the law is an ass". If the law says that then change the law! You were in government not huffing and puffing outside the door.
I suspect that is why some want to leave the ECHR
Well then they should have done it. No one was stopping them as they had a large majority. They didn't do it because they thought it would be electoral poison and a good number of their MPs didn't want it. It wasn't a cabal of judges and civil servants that stopped them.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
Cleverly failed to mention how it would be funded. He didn’t need to go as far as he did this week, but for some reason decided to make commitments. A lack of experience I think
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
Cleverly failed to mention how it would be funded. He didn’t need to go as far as he did this week, but for some reason decided to make commitments. A lack of experience I think
He doesn't have to decide for at least 4 years yet, if ever. It's fine for now for them to make unfunded stuff up.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
It's a disincentive to move when you don't absolutely need to.
OK - so disincentive. That I understand.
His phrase was a little different "...for 35 years there are four unused bedrooms in that house. They are locked into it by the cost of Stamp Duty. If they were able to downsize ...",
That's a mahoosive exaggeration by Cleverly - 1or 2 or 5% preventing moving house for half a lifetime.
Also he didn't say where he would get the £15bn or so to pay for it from, and how he would prevent it being mainly a tax cut for the wealthy.
The problem is that if you have paid off your mortgage so dont have major ongoing housing costs there's little incentive to move, or downsize, even though it's the socially desirable thing to be done.
Moving is stressful and expensive already. Why do it if you don't need to?
Well ideally doing so if downsizing should make you better off. Release the equity you don't need, get a suitable, cheaper home and pocket the difference. But if the difference is going to be swallowed up in taxes, why bother?
Whereas if we had a sensible LVT and abolished stamp duty then those who stay in an oversized home are welcome to do so but will pay accordingly annually. While those who downsize both get to keep the equity released and lower their taxes too. Win/win.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I agree. And the advantage of bringing this in as a stamp duty replacement is it can be pretty small to start with. Over time you can raise it while cutting income taxes (or at least uprating income tax thresholds with inflation like we used to). Or you use this as an opportunity to devolve some power and put all property taxation in the hands of local authorities.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
It's a disincentive to move when you don't absolutely need to.
OK - so disincentive. That I understand.
His phrase was a little different "...for 35 years there are four unused bedrooms in that house. They are locked into it by the cost of Stamp Duty. If they were able to downsize ...",
That's a mahoosive exaggeration by Cleverly - 1or 2 or 5% preventing moving house for half a lifetime.
Also he didn't say where he would get the £15bn or so to pay for it from, and how he would prevent it being mainly a tax cut for the wealthy.
The problem is that if you have paid off your mortgage so dont have major ongoing housing costs there's little incentive to move, or downsize, even though it's the socially desirable thing to be done.
Moving is stressful and expensive already. Why do it if you don't need to?
Well ideally doing so if downsizing should make you better off. Release the equity you don't need, get a suitable, cheaper home and pocket the difference. But if the difference is going to be swallowed up in taxes, why bother?
Whereas if we had a sensible LVT and abolished stamp duty then those who stay in an oversized home are welcome to do so but will pay accordingly annually. While those who downsize both get to keep the equity released and lower their taxes too. Win/win.
The good thing with a LVT is it also doesn't disincentivise development or incentivise land-banking. You pay tax on the land. If you decide to build an extension and add two bedrooms or a new cottage in the back garden there's no increase in your tax bill. Whereas with council tax you get revalued and pushed up the bandings.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I can see the argument, but wouldn't it be a really tough one to introduce? With a house sale, there's a lot of money moving around, and Stamp Duty can feel like part of that. Pain, but a quick pain, and there are plenty of other annoying parts of home buying, but in the end you have the positive of the new house.
With an annual land tax, wouldn't it feel like another Council Tax? Even if it was revenue neutral, most people aren't moving in any given year, and won't feel like they've gained - just that they're now paying a totally new tax.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
They the Cleverly claim was that they had been stuck there for 35 years, which is bizarre.
(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I agree. And the advantage of bringing this in as a stamp duty replacement is it can be pretty small to start with. Over time you can raise it while cutting income taxes (or at least uprating income tax thresholds with inflation like we used to). Or you use this as an opportunity to devolve some power and put all property taxation in the hands of local authorities.
Absolutely. Property taxation should be devolved to local authorities, with consumate reductions in income tax that reduces the dependency of the LAs on central government.
I was going to say this confirms Jenrick as the Corbyn of the Tories, but that's not true. He has been a careerist at every turn. Corbyn's Tory twin is surely Steve Baker.
Can't believe that almost 40% of UK voters think highly of Farage! 40% might have heard of him, of course.
The populist right have recently won elections in the Netherlands, Austria and Italy, so I'm not surprised that the same sort of thing might be happening here.
Stamp duty is effectively paid by the buyer and built into the prices the market allows. Frankly, the market distortion comes from NOT charging it at the lower end of the market. Do that and the market will just find the right price.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I can see the argument, but wouldn't it be a really tough one to introduce? With a house sale, there's a lot of money moving around, and Stamp Duty can feel like part of that. Pain, but a quick pain, and there are plenty of other annoying parts of home buying, but in the end you have the positive of the new house.
With an annual land tax, wouldn't it feel like another Council Tax? Even if it was revenue neutral, most people aren't moving in any given year, and won't feel like they've gained - just that they're now paying a totally new tax.
That's the whole point!
Those who are mobile are being penalised while those who are not are being undertaxed relatively.
Mobility is not something we should be taxing. Indeed moving has extra costs already, piling on taxes on top is utterly perverse.
If those who aren't moving don't like paying their fair share of taxation, well they should just have to suck it up. And if they want to cut their taxes they could by downsizing.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I agree. And the advantage of bringing this in as a stamp duty replacement is it can be pretty small to start with. Over time you can raise it while cutting income taxes (or at least uprating income tax thresholds with inflation like we used to). Or you use this as an opportunity to devolve some power and put all property taxation in the hands of local authorities.
Absolutely. Property taxation should be devolved to local authorities, with consumate reductions in income tax that reduces the dependency of the LAs on central government.
Great for Westminster (council). Less great for Bootle.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
I can see the argument, but wouldn't it be a really tough one to introduce? With a house sale, there's a lot of money moving around, and Stamp Duty can feel like part of that. Pain, but a quick pain, and there are plenty of other annoying parts of home buying, but in the end you have the positive of the new house.
With an annual land tax, wouldn't it feel like another Council Tax? Even if it was revenue neutral, most people aren't moving in any given year, and won't feel like they've gained - just that they're now paying a totally new tax.
Not exactly. The idea behind Land Value Taxation is that is is payable each year. Not just when one sells a house, or even land. What is built on that land is not taken into account at all. So house builders would be encouraged to get building and sell on the property. rather than just sitting on their investment, waiting for its value to increase.
I was going to say this confirms Jenrick as the Corbyn of the Tories, but that's not true. He has been a careerist at every turn. Corbyn's Tory twin is surely Steve Baker.
Baker ? Seriously? In many ways he's a classic liberal. Swayne would be the Corbyn of the Tories.
On Cleverly, this seems a strange statement - as I hear it - that an elderly couple in a 4 or 5 bedroom house are prevented from downsizing by the existence of Stamp Duty.
Yes, many of us have been making this exact same point for years.
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
A £10 billion unfunded commitment. Who pays?
I said how I would fund it - a land value tax paid by everyone who owns land annually, rather than one when moving.
Comments
I have a nasty feeling they’re going to go hog wild with the budget & lose everything that made Season 1 work.
But looks they just have to go through this phase and then learn (yet again) the lessons.
While he lacks the ability to rabble rouse, he's a lot smarter, and would likely be more effective at pushing radical policies through, if he had a majority in Congress.
He is offering clear rightwing redmeat to reunite the right, you may not like it and I still think Tugendhat is a better bet to win back Tory voters lost to Labour and the LDs but Jenrick's message will have appeal. especially in the redwall
They’re spending £20million per episode, so it must be going somewhere...
edit: Some discussion on Reddit suggests the show is not well run with constant reshoots & the script is never nailed down for the whole season so if they come up with a neat idea in episode 7 that means they have to reshoot half of episode 3 then that’s what they do.
Plus the writers strike meant re-hiring everyone & rebuilding all the sets etc.
So part of it is just being profligate with the budget apparently.
a very confused Trump confuses Kim Jong Un with the president of Iran and claims Kim Jong Un "is trying to kill me"...
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1841262027618066747
https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/1811339260550627795
I like war stories, and expect a degree of ruthlessness. But, I don't want to read a fictionalised version of Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger.
I think that script-writing was an earlier part of Abercrombie's career.
The problem with Benioff & Weiss is not so much that they were bad writers, as that they were lazy writers.
It is probable Jenrick votes helped ease Patel out by propping up Stride, then propped up Tugendhat who was at risk after round 1. My view is Jenrick has a team that can count, and has more numbers up his sleeve than he's showed in the first two rounds. Remember, you can't lose momentum in these - you mustn't put in your best performance in the first round, then appear to be on the slide.
I also think Badenoch has had a very poor conference. The maternity leave thing absolutely played into MPs' concern about her - that she's ill-disciplined, and comes out with silly stuff to get a rise out of people. Badenoch potentially losing MPs also plays into Jenrick's hands in terms of the numbers game.
What about the Witan? eh? eh?
The winner only has to go up against Starmer, charisma is not going to be a hard battle to win if it comes to it.
https://x.com/hugorifkind/status/1841436531145289731?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Buying at 4.1 would be the muggiest punt since muggy punts began.
And then gets fact-checked on them after the debate. On abortion: "I never supported a national ban."
Oooops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMEkEo1ak68
Have I missed something?
https://youtu.be/MiMGGqB8MbA?t=6569
If you're buying a house for £350k, say, it's an extra £5k that you lose in the transaction.
Leverage, and Leverage: Redemption are both really pleasant series. One of those where the actors really look like they're having fun filming it; particularly Beth Riesgraf as the thief Parker.
Incidentally, the original Leverage ended after five series, and it was brought back nearly a decade later with some of the same characters as "Leverage: Redemption". It's pretty much as good as the original: ridiculous, but fun. That's quite a trick IMO.
"Hello Mr Future PM. I have 100 full painted Dreadnoughts for you. Just need your signature on this parchment. Well, actually some drops of blood would be ideal..."
Stamp Duty is a wretched tax on mobility.
If you are an elderly couple in a 5 bed house and you stay there until you pass on you don't pay a penny of stamp duty. If you downsize, you do.
Those arguing in favour of stamp duty make the fallacious argument that as there's large sums of money involved at the time of sales it is expedient to have a tax then, but the problem is it is a massive disincentive to mobility and discourages behaviour we should encourage.
Far better to abolish stamp duty and replace with an annual land value tax. A couple that downsizes should be decreasing their tax bill, not getting a hefty one they'd otherwise avoid.
His point is that there needs to be a way to exempt people downsizing from stamp duty - which is difficult because one relates to sqft or number of bedrooms, and the other to price. Downsizing needs to be encouraged within the tax system.
His phrase was a little different "...for 35 years there are four unused bedrooms in that house. They are locked into it by the cost of Stamp Duty. If they were able to downsize ...",
That's a mahoosive exaggeration by Cleverly - 1or 2 or 5% preventing moving house for half a lifetime.
Also he didn't say where he would get the £15bn or so to pay for it from, and how he would prevent it being mainly a tax cut for the wealthy.
My choice would be Badenoch and Cleverly
And for me to rejoin it would have to be Cleverly
Cleverly came out best after that (and this view is reflected in the change in odds).
There is no reason to be taxing mobility. Taxes should be consistently applied, only taxing those who are mobile is perverse and discourages mobility. Those who are still in the same house they lived in last year, or for the past 35 years, should pay the same taxes as those who've moved in this year.
“Ministers need to be able to make decisions that cannot be challenged in courts, she adds”.
I’m old enough to remember when the applause line at a Tory conference would be more likely to be that no one is above the law…
Moving is stressful and expensive already. Why do it if you don't need to?
Well ideally doing so if downsizing should make you better off. Release the equity you don't need, get a suitable, cheaper home and pocket the difference. But if the difference is going to be swallowed up in taxes, why bother?
Whereas if we had a sensible LVT and abolished stamp duty then those who stay in an oversized home are welcome to do so but will pay accordingly annually. While those who downsize both get to keep the equity released and lower their taxes too. Win/win.
"@Jesse_Norman
I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe.
12:18 PM · Oct 2, 2024 111.4K Views"
https://x.com/Jesse_Norman/status/1841437539204251930
With an annual land tax, wouldn't it feel like another Council Tax? Even if it was revenue neutral, most people aren't moving in any given year, and won't feel like they've gained - just that they're now paying a totally new tax.
(I pretty much agree with you on the abolition, but I'd do it as part of making Council Tax 0.5% of property value, which is different to your LVT but of the same ilk.)
Those who are mobile are being penalised while those who are not are being undertaxed relatively.
Mobility is not something we should be taxing. Indeed moving has extra costs already, piling on taxes on top is utterly perverse.
If those who aren't moving don't like paying their fair share of taxation, well they should just have to suck it up. And if they want to cut their taxes they could by downsizing.
Jenrick will then in all likelihood win, but I think Cleverly has more of a chance than before conference, and could surprise us.