Well worth a read, and another example of why I am glad I didn't become an MP.
Shhh! My dad was a Tory MP: why I didn’t tell my friends
Growing up, Adam Hart was proud that his father, Simon, had a job that other people were interested in. Then the internet abuse started. At university having the Conservative secretary of state for Wales as a parent was social death
...In June 2016, when I was revising for my GCSEs, the MP Jo Cox was murdered after leaving her constituency surgery. Like everyone else, I had read many news articles about murders, but this one, with its pictures of a fortysomething MP with two kids, felt odd.
At home, the powers-that-be reviewed our “home security”. We failed on account of the public footpath that runs past our front door. Some men fitted a panic button in my parents’ wardrobe as well as a motion-triggered alarm outside the door. The first night the alarm was in operation a badger walked past and set it off, summoning Dyfed-Powys police to our house at 3am. As my sister and I were away, my parents saw the policemen at the door and assumed one of us had died.
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.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
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.
Agree with both of you, whats best for the country and what works politically often don't overlap. It is the sort of thing that can only be done by a new government with a big majority in its first budget and a good excuse....
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
It is, of course, impossible to "fund" a "commitment" at this stage, since we don't know precisely the nature of the mess that Starmer and Reeves will make of the economy
“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…
I think there is a germ of a point there, but perhaps if ministers pass well written laws it wouldn't be an issue. And if ministers make tough decisions that are lawful it shouldn't be for the courts to intervene.
We have seen a lot of frankly vexatious legal activity in recent times, mostly politically motivated. The Good Law Project are prime examples, who seem to have stopped now there is a government more to their taste.
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.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
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.
Plus Trump of course, we will see if he can do it again next month.
In France Le Pen's party won the first round of the legislative elections, in Germany the AfD is now second behind the CDU.
In Canada Poilievre's populist right Conservative party is well ahead of Trudeau's Liberals and the NDP in polls and Jenrick is friends with Polievre. In Australia populist right Dutton is leader of the Coalition opposition which is neck and neck with Albanese's Labor government in polls.
In every case where the populist right has got into government though eg the Netherlands and Italy and Sweden and maybe Austria it has been in coalition with the main centre right party or in Canada's case via merger with the main centre right party.
Or via taking over the main centre right party as in Australia or the US
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
"I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe." - Jesse Norman MP
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Well worth a read, and another example of why I am glad I didn't become an MP.
Shhh! My dad was a Tory MP: why I didn’t tell my friends
Growing up, Adam Hart was proud that his father, Simon, had a job that other people were interested in. Then the internet abuse started. At university having the Conservative secretary of state for Wales as a parent was social death
...In June 2016, when I was revising for my GCSEs, the MP Jo Cox was murdered after leaving her constituency surgery. Like everyone else, I had read many news articles about murders, but this one, with its pictures of a fortysomething MP with two kids, felt odd.
At home, the powers-that-be reviewed our “home security”. We failed on account of the public footpath that runs past our front door. Some men fitted a panic button in my parents’ wardrobe as well as a motion-triggered alarm outside the door. The first night the alarm was in operation a badger walked past and set it off, summoning Dyfed-Powys police to our house at 3am. As my sister and I were away, my parents saw the policemen at the door and assumed one of us had died.
Why have some people started behaving like this in recent years? I don't understand it.
Because big social media companies make tens of billions out of ads they push by getting ordinary people angry with other ordinary people over very little.
Fascinating stepping into the Tory world today. It was between Jenrick and Cleverly. If either is a star in the making, they are hiding it well.
I think all 4 spoke better than Starmer did at his conference, though Jenrick was the most articulate.
No he wasn't
Articulate (meaning expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively) is an odd way of looking at it I think. They were all articulate.
Who can you see on the steps of No 10? Who has vision? Who is strong and can forcefully take on Starmer? Who can shed criticism like it's water off an duck's back rather than panicking and kowtowing to it? Who can position the party to be default choice when Labour becomes unpopular?
Fascinating stepping into the Tory world today. It was between Jenrick and Cleverly. If either is a star in the making, they are hiding it well.
I think all 4 spoke better than Starmer did at his conference, though Jenrick was the most articulate.
No he wasn't
Articulate (meaning expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively) is an odd way of looking at it I think. They were all articulate.
Who can you see on the steps of No 10? Who has vision? Who is strong and can forcefully take on Starmer? Who can position the party to be default choice when Labour becomes unpopular?
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
"I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe." - Jesse Norman MP
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
No coincidence Norman one of Badenoch's main backers of course
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.
Exactly the opposite. It would allow the local authorities to set their own property tax rates based on local need. Westminster’s property tax will be 0.5% and Bootle’s 2%.
Anything based on a national scale of property prices creates tens of millions of people who will never vote for the party implementing such a change ever again. It’s politically impossible.
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
"I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe." - Jesse Norman MP
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
No coincidence Norman one of Badenoch's main backers of course
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
"I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe." - Jesse Norman MP
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
HYUFD sees it from the members' perspective - a view that we largely miss on here.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Nope. If the Government has a majority and doesn’t like those duties it can change the law and remove them. It should never ignore the law.
I used to joke that Westminster could do what ever it wanted if the first line of the relevant Act repealed the European Communities Act, but now you don’t even need that caveat. But have the courage of your convictions and change the law in Parliament. To do otherwise is the doorway to dictatorship.
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.
The counter argument for that is do builders have land banks that they aren't building on because they want to increase profits or because they don't have the staff / demand to warrant building much faster...
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Parliaments are not bound, they can simply repeal legislation they don't like and/or leave international treaties.
If they keep legislation or treaties they don't like, then they cannot expect the courts to pretend they don't exist.
Fascinating stepping into the Tory world today. It was between Jenrick and Cleverly. If either is a star in the making, they are hiding it well.
I think all 4 spoke better than Starmer did at his conference, though Jenrick was the most articulate.
No he wasn't
Articulate (meaning expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively) is an odd way of looking at it I think. They were all articulate.
Who can you see on the steps of No 10? Who has vision? Who is strong and can forcefully take on Starmer? Who can shed criticism like it's water off an duck's back rather than panicking and kowtowing to it? Who can position the party to be default choice when Labour becomes unpopular?
Not Jenrick or Tugendhat IMO.
Far more likely them than Badenoch or Cleverly.
I have made up my mind, I will vote for Jenrick if my first choice Tugendhat is not in the final 2 when I get my ballot paper
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
"I am very sorry to have to say it, but that speech of Robert Jenrick's was lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe." - Jesse Norman MP
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
No coincidence Norman one of Badenoch's main backers of course
But he is spot on
Is he saying then that "I'd imprison 50k civil servants" is lazy, but honest tripe ?
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.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.
Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".
Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.
Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Nope. If the Government has a majority and doesn’t like those duties it can change the law and remove them. It should never ignore the law.
I used to joke that Westminster could do what ever it wanted if the first line of the relevant Act repealed the European Communities Act, but now you don’t even need that caveat. But have the courage of your convictions and change the law in Parliament. To do otherwise is the doorway to dictatorship.
Kemi is clearly impatient of such democratic impediments. She appears to want to govern by fiat power.
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.)
It isn't bizarre. Many people stay in "the family home" for decades with no family living with them. Our tax system positively encourages them to stay there and not to move and will have done so for each of those 35 years.
So you don’t believe in the right to own property and do as you wish with it? Bit Communist.
No I do believe in the right to property ownership.
Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".
Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.
Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
But what’s are you taking when you apply land value tax to people? You’re taxing quiet enjoyment, presumably for the common good.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
The problem has been the increase in what an American would call Constitutional Amendments, passed in recent years, such as the Human Rights Act, Equalities Act etc, which in practice bind governments as to the legislation they can pass, and lead to interpretations from judges - sometimes not even British judges - that can nullify or reinterpret laws passed by Parliament.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Nope. If the Government has a majority and doesn’t like those duties it can change the law and remove them. It should never ignore the law.
I used to joke that Westminster could do what ever it wanted if the first line of the relevant Act repealed the European Communities Act, but now you don’t even need that caveat. But have the courage of your convictions and change the law in Parliament. To do otherwise is the doorway to dictatorship.
Well if her argument is that an incoming Conservative government should repeal these bits of legislation, then I agree.
Fascinating stepping into the Tory world today. It was between Jenrick and Cleverly. If either is a star in the making, they are hiding it well.
I think all 4 spoke better than Starmer did at his conference, though Jenrick was the most articulate.
No he wasn't
Articulate (meaning expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively) is an odd way of looking at it I think. They were all articulate.
Who can you see on the steps of No 10? Who has vision? Who is strong and can forcefully take on Starmer? Who can shed criticism like it's water off an duck's back rather than panicking and kowtowing to it? Who can position the party to be default choice when Labour becomes unpopular?
Not Jenrick or Tugendhat IMO.
Didn't hear the speeches, but this week does seem to have clarified the decision.
In the "right wing" lane, Badenoch has had a terrible week. Jenrick may be unpleasant in a hard-to-put-your-finger-on way, but he's the last one standing on that side.
In the "centrist" lane, Tugendhat has sold his soul for nothing, and Cleverly has had a good week. Jolly Jimmy C has also subtly killed some Conservative kittens- I doubt that we would hear much about Stop The Boats under his leadership.
I don't know if he's a PM in waiting... Who can tell? But I'm pretty sure he will come across better with the public than Jenrick.
So it looks like Tom and Kemi drop out next week, and the order doesn't really matter. Who do members go for? The one who is more likely to attract the public, or the one saying what members want to hear? And if they elect the former as leader, will they be prepared to follow him?
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
It is, of course, impossible to "fund" a "commitment" at this stage, since we don't know precisely the nature of the mess that Starmer and Reeves will make of the economy
If there's a house price crash then stamp duty will raise a lot less money, and abolishing it would be easier.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Is that like fiddling PPE contracts, taking lots of freebies, etc
Well worth a read, and another example of why I am glad I didn't become an MP.
Shhh! My dad was a Tory MP: why I didn’t tell my friends
Growing up, Adam Hart was proud that his father, Simon, had a job that other people were interested in. Then the internet abuse started. At university having the Conservative secretary of state for Wales as a parent was social death
...In June 2016, when I was revising for my GCSEs, the MP Jo Cox was murdered after leaving her constituency surgery. Like everyone else, I had read many news articles about murders, but this one, with its pictures of a fortysomething MP with two kids, felt odd.
At home, the powers-that-be reviewed our “home security”. We failed on account of the public footpath that runs past our front door. Some men fitted a panic button in my parents’ wardrobe as well as a motion-triggered alarm outside the door. The first night the alarm was in operation a badger walked past and set it off, summoning Dyfed-Powys police to our house at 3am. As my sister and I were away, my parents saw the policemen at the door and assumed one of us had died.
Why have some people started behaving like this in recent years? I don't understand it.
I don't think anyone definitively knows. The Internet has reduced barriers and we have the phenomenon of online disinhibition. People sound off online in a way they wouldn't in person, and it has become much easier for your abuse to reach its target. 50 years ago, people perhaps had the same thoughts, but they didn't have an easy way of expressing them at someone. Maybe most people aren't like that, but those who are gravitate to online environments.
But maybe it's also about a degradation of political discourse, brought about by more partisan media. Then there's the influence of foreign agents, Russia etc. deliberately injecting discord. We now know Russia was funding right-wing commentators to make divisive social media content, down to complaining the latest Star Wars series is "too woke".
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Parliament is not bound. It can change the law and remove the requirement for an equalities assessment.
If a minister's decision or action is contrary to law then absolutely that should be challenged in the Courts.
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.
Clever enough to realise he started the debate with a very bad reputation and needed to recover it, rather than double down. He emerged from the debate as a nice guy whereas Walz went in as a nice guy and didn’t really play to his strengths (although if he is the poor debater he confessed himself to be, maybe coming out with almost a draw isn’t as bad as it could have been?).
The danger is that voters decide Vance can somehow ‘control’ or temper Trump, or take over from him if Trump goes senile or loopy. Hence last night will probably chip away at Harris’s emerging lead.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
The problem has been the increase in what an American would call Constitutional Amendments, passed in recent years, such as the Human Rights Act, Equalities Act etc, which in practice bind governments as to the legislation they can pass, and lead to interpretations from judges - sometimes not even British judges - that can nullify or reinterpret laws passed by Parliament.
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about the Blob that specifically mentioned those acts... 😃
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.
Good luck finding the politician to get that argument across.
Someone else suggested it could be done early in a parliament with a big majority, but you're still talking about something extra and new that people will pay every month. When the election comes round, people will still be paying the new tax.
Telling someone it encourages mobility, when most people only move once every ten years (and those without mortgages move a LOT less frequently), is not a political winner, no matter how much it would make sense.
“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…
I've never really grapsed why and in what circumstances there are laws which can and can't be made.
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor. So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
The problem has been the increase in what an American would call Constitutional Amendments, passed in recent years, such as the Human Rights Act, Equalities Act etc, which in practice bind governments as to the legislation they can pass, and lead to interpretations from judges - sometimes not even British judges - that can nullify or reinterpret laws passed by Parliament.
It's almost like somebody wrote an article about the Blob that specifically mentioned those acts... 😃
Comments
We have seen a lot of frankly vexatious legal activity in recent times, mostly politically motivated. The Good Law Project are prime examples, who seem to have stopped now there is a government more to their taste.
In France Le Pen's party won the first round of the legislative elections, in Germany the AfD is now second behind the CDU.
In Canada Poilievre's populist right Conservative party is well ahead of Trudeau's Liberals and the NDP in polls and Jenrick is friends with Polievre. In Australia populist right Dutton is leader of the Coalition opposition which is neck and neck with Albanese's Labor government in polls.
In every case where the populist right has got into government though eg the Netherlands and Italy and Sweden and maybe Austria it has been in coalition with the main centre right party or in Canada's case via merger with the main centre right party.
Or via taking over the main centre right party as in Australia or the US
HYUFD and Jesse Norman the book-ends of the Conservative Party!
I agree no-one should be above the law when the law concerns e.g. speeding or shoplifting. You'd expect a minister who had done either of those to be prosecuted as much as the next man. But for a minister to be be taken to court because he had failed to do e.g. an equalities assessment in e.g. abolishing the WFA? (I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption or not.) Laws on what laws can be passed strike me as counter-democratic: parliament binding its successor.
So, I'd agree - ministers need to be able to make decisions without being dragged through the courts.
Who can you see on the steps of No 10? Who has vision? Who is strong and can forcefully take on Starmer? Who can shed criticism like it's water off an duck's back rather than panicking and kowtowing to it? Who can position the party to be default choice when Labour becomes unpopular?
Not Jenrick or Tugendhat IMO.
Westminster’s property tax will be 0.5% and Bootle’s 2%.
Anything based on a national scale of property prices creates tens of millions of people who will never vote for the party implementing such a change ever again. It’s politically impossible.
I used to joke that Westminster could do what ever it wanted if the first line of the relevant Act repealed the European Communities Act, but now you don’t even need that caveat. But have the courage of your convictions and change the law in Parliament. To do otherwise is the doorway to dictatorship.
If they keep legislation or treaties they don't like, then they cannot expect the courts to pretend they don't exist.
This is not rocket science.
I have made up my mind, I will vote for Jenrick if my first choice Tugendhat is not in the final 2 when I get my ballot paper
Quite the opposite, only taxing people when they buy or move is not letting them "do as they wish with it".
Taxes should be flat, low and consistent.
Those who buy this year should pay the same taxes as those who bought 50 years ago.
NEW THREAD
She appears to want to govern by fiat power.
In the "right wing" lane, Badenoch has had a terrible week. Jenrick may be unpleasant in a hard-to-put-your-finger-on way, but he's the last one standing on that side.
In the "centrist" lane, Tugendhat has sold his soul for nothing, and Cleverly has had a good week. Jolly Jimmy C has also subtly killed some Conservative kittens- I doubt that we would hear much about Stop The Boats under his leadership.
I don't know if he's a PM in waiting... Who can tell? But I'm pretty sure he will come across better with the public than Jenrick.
So it looks like Tom and Kemi drop out next week, and the order doesn't really matter. Who do members go for? The one who is more likely to attract the public, or the one saying what members want to hear? And if they elect the former as leader, will they be prepared to follow him?
But maybe it's also about a degradation of political discourse, brought about by more partisan media. Then there's the influence of foreign agents, Russia etc. deliberately injecting discord. We now know Russia was funding right-wing commentators to make divisive social media content, down to complaining the latest Star Wars series is "too woke".
If a minister's decision or action is contrary to law then absolutely that should be challenged in the Courts.
The danger is that voters decide Vance can somehow ‘control’ or temper Trump, or take over from him if Trump goes senile or loopy. Hence last night will probably chip away at Harris’s emerging lead.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/money/13615730/island-community-shuts-down-sundays-fight-tesco-plans-open/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/09/28/the-blob/
Someone else suggested it could be done early in a parliament with a big majority, but you're still talking about something extra and new that people will pay every month. When the election comes round, people will still be paying the new tax.
Telling someone it encourages mobility, when most people only move once every ten years (and those without mortgages move a LOT less frequently), is not a political winner, no matter how much it would make sense.
'Going after Labour votes lost Tory votes' (from Guido's summary).
That was going after Labour votes?
(Aside: Guido's bullet-point summaries seem quite decent:
https://order-order.com/2024/10/02/live-badenoch-gives-conference-address/
https://order-order.com/2024/10/02/live-robert-jenrick-delivers-conference-speech/
https://order-order.com/2024/10/02/live-cleverly-delivers-conference-speech/
https://order-order.com/2024/10/02/live-tugendhat-delivers-conference-speech/
)