Shock: Voters do not like tax rises on themselves – politicalbetting.com

System

Shock: Voters do not like tax rises on themselves – politicalbetting.com

57% of Britons expect the taxes they pay will increase in this autumn's budget, with 71% anticipating wider tax rises, following Rachel Reeves hinting in her conference speech that taxes will have to go upPersonal taxesIncrease: 57%Stay same: 20%Taxes overallIncrease: 71%Stay same: 12%

Read the full story here

Sunil_Prasannan

First

FrancisUrquhart

stodge said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One thing that struck me with the Panorama story (and previous story on undercover in prisons), background checks are clearly absolutely terrible. That should be very concerning.

When you have someone who has been in the Met for 20 years or more, the "background checks" he or she would have gone through in the mid-noughties aren't what they are now. Perhaps the bigger question is the extent of the performance review culture and the way the officers can give the "right" answers to people they don't know and are yet much more confident in the privacy of their office to express their true sentiments.

The latter happens in most, if not all workplaces. I suspect if you did a similar covert filming in a supermarket staff room you'd find some entertaining comments but it's not the same. I know some teachers who say the most appalling things about children and parents when they think they are "in private".

I think you are missing my point. If they hire a journalist who works at the BBC and no clue they are doing so, how hard is it for a clean skin that is a associate of somebody involved in organised crime to get their foot in the door. There has been reports that there are serious concerns this is happening in police and prisons, where civilians roles are easy jobs to get and now actually "front line" e.g. I honestly didn't know a civilian could do the job the Panorama journalist was doing, I presume all they did was filing paperwork.

Also worth noting that the authorities having access to Encrochat was busted by a corrupt civilian employees in the police who reported it to criminal associate.

OldKingCole

Second? Really?

geoffw

Always tax rises never cut current spending

HYUFD

Voters are expecting tax rises but most of them don't think they are needed.

More Labour voters than not and to a lesser extent more LD voters than not think tax rises are needed though. So if as expected Reeves taxes shareholders, business owners, second home owners, landlords and wealthy pensioners and freezes the income tax threshold it may even shore up the Labour core vote and win back a few voters from the LDs and Greens even as it puts off some swing voters who go Tory or Reform having voted Labour last year

Malmesbury

IIRC, some years ago, the Economist did a survey on the definition of “rich”

Apparently it’s quite simple.


“Rich bastards who need to be taxed more” are people who have 200% of your income.

Cicero

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

malcolmg

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

Yes pathetic clowns no backbone and no clue. Looking at easy options as always.

rcs1000

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

TimS

Taxes will of course have to go up. My hope is that Reeves avoids the temptation to fiddle and tinker with some too clever by half measures, and instead goes for something broad based and understandable.

She needs not only to close the fiscal gap but to restore some headroom after successive budgets from her and Hunt almost completely removed it. Only then will bond markets respond favourably. If she can get that done, then interest costs will fall and it’ll be a virtuous circle.

I am already getting lots of journalist questions on what will happen, because nobody’s adjusted their usual speculation timing to account for the budget being in late November. So predictions season is starting very early.

JosiasJessop

FrancisUrquhart said:

stodge said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

One thing that struck me with the Panorama story (and previous story on undercover in prisons), background checks are clearly absolutely terrible. That should be very concerning.

When you have someone who has been in the Met for 20 years or more, the "background checks" he or she would have gone through in the mid-noughties aren't what they are now. Perhaps the bigger question is the extent of the performance review culture and the way the officers can give the "right" answers to people they don't know and are yet much more confident in the privacy of their office to express their true sentiments.

The latter happens in most, if not all workplaces. I suspect if you did a similar covert filming in a supermarket staff room you'd find some entertaining comments but it's not the same. I know some teachers who say the most appalling things about children and parents when they think they are "in private".

I think you are missing my point. If they hire a journalist who works at the BBC and no clue they are doing so, how hard is it for a clean skin that is a associate of somebody involved in organised crime to get their foot in the door. There has been reports that there are serious concerns this is happening in police and prisons, where civilians roles are easy jobs to get and now actually "front line" e.g. I honestly didn't know a civilian could do the job the Panorama journalist was doing, I presume all they did was filing paperwork.

Also worth noting that the authorities having access to Encrochat was busted by a corrupt civilian employees in the police who reported it to criminal associate.

I read a book last year, where an ex-police officer claimed that is exactly what is happening. As it happens, the book was written in such a way I didn't *quite* believe everything he said, but it is certainly feasible for organised crime to do this. And it also makes sense for them to try it.

StillWaters

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Actually they almost never cut: they reduce the rate of growth.

Fundamentally they need to do two things:

- go through the entire list of programmes and decide which to abandon. Salami slicing everything doesn’t work - it just degrades everything without saving much money

- go through the cost of delivery and figure out how to do it better and cheaper/. This is not easy or glamorous work, but it’s the sort of grinding efficiency that the private sector looks for the whole time

scampi25

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

Flatlander

FPT:

DavidL said:

MattW said:

Lordy. More from Doncaster Council. These people are 4 year olds caught stealing jam trying to justify themselves, then blaming each other, and hoping no one will notice.

And these two passed Nigel's world-class vetting system, which he backed out of in the summer to let the rejects have another run.

A Reform UK councillor has stepped down as deputy leader of the Doncaster branch of the party over her involvement in a company she co-founded to do business with the council.

Councillor Rachel Reed set up Fly Doncaster (Auxiliary Services) Ltd with Councillor David Knight, who was also a Reform UK councillor until he was stripped of the party whip over the saga.

The party has said the business was Knight's idea and Reed - who had worked in a school before entering politics - was unaware of the implications it would have.

Reed will remain as a councillor for Conisbrough ward and has resigned as a director of Fly Doncaster (Auxiliary Services) Ltd.

According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Doncaster Reform UK has appointed Councillor Karl Hughes as deputy leader.

Fly Doncaster (Auxiliary Services) Ltd was established on 18 September after the council created Fly Doncaster to manage Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA).

Earlier this month, Reform spokesperson Jason Charity said Fly Doncaster (Auxillary Services) Ltd was Knight's idea, as he "thought that the auxiliary services around DSA have not been established, and he thought there was a business opportunity in it".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly9d5v2rqpo

Bring on the Marx Brothers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hv5lqE0f3Q

One of our more self indulgent judges uses the example of a sticky dodger to explain an inference. Mum leaves the room and the sticky dodger vanishes. Kid vehemently denies taking it but has jam on his face. You might infer the culprit from the circumstantial evidence despite the denials.

Corruption in Doncaster Council? Well, Pikachu surprised face.

There are relatively few details about exactly what services this company were supposed to be providing but, given the ridiculous amount of money the council is spending on getting the airport up and running (assuming they even achieve that), it wouldn't be a surprise that some of that might leak to "friends and acquaintances".

At least this one was slightly less direct than the brown paper envelope planning system of the past.

JosiasJessop

A little rant, if I may.

I need to go to hospital for an x-ray this afternoon. The busses are not really convenient, and parking in the hospital fraught and expensive. Instead, I thought I would park at a nearby park and ride (Trumpington) and either walk the short distance to the hospital, or get the bus.

Last time I did this, I found that the park and ride was full - I'd never seen it full on a weekday before. (*), and had a fraught half-hour trying to find somewhere else to park, especially as another park and ride was also full. Fortunately I'd left enough time to still make my appointment. So this morning I thought I'd check how full the park and ride was online.

And the information doesn't appear to be available online. There is a page for their city-centre car parks (https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/available-spaces-in-our-multi-storey-car-parks ), but not the park and rides.

(This is where somebody finds an obvious link to a page that does show it...)

(*) I wonder if lots of people on the biomedical campus are parking there and cycling/walking/bussing in.

LostPassword

StillWaters said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Actually they almost never cut: they reduce the rate of growth.

Fundamentally they need to do two things:

- go through the entire list of programmes and decide which to abandon. Salami slicing everything doesn’t work - it just degrades everything without saving much money

- go through the cost of delivery and figure out how to do it better and cheaper/. This is not easy or glamorous work, but it’s the sort of grinding efficiency that the private sector looks for the whole time

The most important thing they need to do is to get people lower down the responsibility and accountability chain also working on improving efficiency of spending. People who are actually doing the work and understand the problems need to be empowered to solve them.

At the moment we have a situation where vast sums off money are being spent on taxis because the centre has mandated that the service has to be provided, but hasn't devolved the autonomy to allow people to find a better way of doing so, or a more reasonable threshold for supplying that service.

I don't think we can meaningfully increase the efficiency of public spending without the centre letting go of considerable power. That's going to lead to lots of mistakes being made in local areas, but we then need to have a system that will correct those mistakes and spread better ways of doing things.

This is the sort of thing that an open democracy should be good at, but instead Britain is increasingly run like a centralised dictatorship, with most people treated as mindless automatons who can't be trusted to think for themselves.

IanB2

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

Nonsense

rkrkrk

Striking how many Reform voters think tax rises are not necessary at all.
Will make a Farage govt impossible to run I suspect.

Battlebus

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

But as the DSA comments (FPT) you apparently can only get growth by continuing to subsidise white elephants that had years of loss making. Perhaps Trump is correct in taking away the spending powers of the lower chambers. But I have to acknowledge that public subsidy triggers me, and triggers me often.

scampi25

IanB2 said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

Nonsense

Such insight.

LostPassword

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

The issue is that the system is/was funded on a pay as you go basis.

When the baby boomer generation was "paying-in" they were supporting a smaller retired cohort, so they didn't have to pay in as much as it would cost to provide their own pensions. So the current working generation is now asked to make higher contributions to support a larger retired cohort - but likely they too are not paying in enough to cover their own pensions, when the ratio between the retired and working will likely be worse.

There's no good answer to this problem. You were lied to when you were making your contributions.

rkrkrk

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

scampi25

rkrkrk said:

Striking how many Reform voters think tax rises are not necessary at all.
Will make a Farage govt impossible to run I suspect.

Spending cuts can help but piling on the deficit with ending the 2 child cap tells you all you need to know about the current govt.

Big_G_NorthWales

'Rachel Reeves has only two flaws as Chancellor, everything she does and everything she says'

Apart from LOL there has never been a truer word

scampi25

LostPassword said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

The issue is that the system is/was funded on a pay as you go basis.

When the baby boomer generation was "paying-in" they were supporting a smaller retired cohort, so they didn't have to pay in as much as it would cost to provide their own pensions. So the current working generation is now asked to make higher contributions to support a larger retired cohort - but likely they too are not paying in enough to cover their own pensions, when the ratio between the retired and working will likely be worse.

There's no good answer to this problem. You were lied to when you were making your contributions.

I agree.

MattW

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

HYUFD

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

rcs1000

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Presumably there has been some analysis done that shows additional NHS costs would outweigh tax raised.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

Fairliered

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

scampi25

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Presumably there has been some analysis done that shows additional NHS costs would outweigh tax raised.

Analysis! Hahaha.

SandyRentool

rkrkrk said:

Striking how many Reform voters think tax rises are not necessary at all.
Will make a Farage govt impossible to run I suspect.

Scrapping the NHS and replacing it with an insurance-based model will allow a big reduction in taxation.

But will make most of us a lot poorer.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

rcs1000

scampi25 said:

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Presumably there has been some analysis done that shows additional NHS costs would outweigh tax raised.

Analysis! Hahaha.

That is literally the job of the Treasury Civil Servants.

Fairliered

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

He knows the private medical sector is helping take pressure off the NHS.

Dopermean

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Presumably there has been some analysis done that shows additional NHS costs would outweigh tax raised.

Or that it would be hugely unpopular charging another 20% on people who've spent their savings to get treated now rather than wait 2 years on a waiting list.
Also waiting lists would get longer when bringing them down is a key pledge.

Dopermean

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Presumably there has been some analysis done that shows additional NHS costs would outweigh tax raised.

Or that it would be hugely unpopular charging another 20% on people who've spent their savings to get treated now rather than wait 2 years on a waiting list.
Also waiting lists would get longer when bringing them down is a key pledge.

Razedabode

Talking about Labour and their budget woes - they probably need to start looking at the railways again https://www.cityam.com/south-western-railway-performance-nosedives-after-nationalisation/

Another glorious success

Mexicanpete

Claire Coutinho calling on Independent Peer and former Labour voter Michelle Mone to resign. Claire is one to watch!

Fairliered

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

There’s no point the UK spending money trying to alleviate climate change if the USA aren’t. We should be spending the money alleviating the effects, instead. Things like flood prevention, building more reservoirs, making electricity supply and transport infrastructure more wind resistant, for example.

rcs1000

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

Anything which discourages the housing market from clearing is bad. If you are a 65 year old whose kids have left home, and you have a house that's 3x as large as you need, then you aren't going to sell if it generates a large capital gains tax bill. What we want to do is to encourage the market to clear.

Personally, I would get rid of stamp duty and replace it with an annual charge based on the value of a property. That means that moving house is (almost) free, but staying in a house that is too big for you is expensive.

I would make the charge for homes that are occupied less than 180 days a year twice the regular rate, and for those occupied fewer than 90, I would make it four times the regular rate. This would discourage people from having homes they don't live in.

I do realise that these changes would be unpopular with a lot of people; but the very definition of economics is 'a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources'. And I believe the tax and benefits system should be encouraging just that: efficient use of scarce resources.

HYUFD

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

BartholomewRoberts

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

In how many years of your working life did you contribute to a Budget surplus that has been set aside to fund your benefits you expect in your retirement?

Sadly, no matter how much taxes you paid, the spending the state made during those years fairly consistently exceeded the taxes at the time, so you [collectively] have contributed a deficit even before any retirement-based expenditure, not a surplus.

That is why we have such a mountain of debt and debt interest.

rcs1000

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

There’s no point the UK spending money trying to alleviate climate change if the USA aren’t. We should be spending the money alleviating the effects, instead. Things like flood prevention, building more reservoirs, making electricity supply and transport infrastructure more wind resistant, for example.

On the other hand, the UK has a large current account deficit, and is a net energy importer. Encouraging people through the tax system to be efficient with imported energy is smart.

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

Trying to win back voters from Reform I suspect, see also her likely pledge to leave the ECHR next week, a pledge previously only Jenrick committed to.

If it works and the Tories get a poll bounce she could secure her leadership, if it fails then Cleverly would likely replace her as Conservative leader within a year

JosiasJessop

Razedabode said:

Talking about Labour and their budget woes - they probably need to start looking at the railways again https://www.cityam.com/south-western-railway-performance-nosedives-after-nationalisation/

Another glorious success

It's still early days, but it's an ominous sign.

As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.

JosiasJessop

Razedabode said:

Talking about Labour and their budget woes - they probably need to start looking at the railways again https://www.cityam.com/south-western-railway-performance-nosedives-after-nationalisation/

Another glorious success

It's still early days, but it's an ominous sign.

As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.

Big_G_NorthWales

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

Similar to private schools - apply VAT to private medicine you add to NHS demand

Dopermean

LostPassword said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

The issue is that the system is/was funded on a pay as you go basis.

When the baby boomer generation was "paying-in" they were supporting a smaller retired cohort, so they didn't have to pay in as much as it would cost to provide their own pensions. So the current working generation is now asked to make higher contributions to support a larger retired cohort - but likely they too are not paying in enough to cover their own pensions, when the ratio between the retired and working will likely be worse.

There's no good answer to this problem. You were lied to when you were making your contributions.

Of course that generation were happy to take advantage of that lie.
So the solution to balance the books is either to increase the working population through immigration or euthanasia.
COVID was nature trying to solve the issue

GarethoftheVale2

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

So let's say I own a house worth 500k. Next year the value increases to 550k so I have to pay CGT. The following year afterwards the value drops back down to 500k. Does the Government now give me a refund?

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

Frankly, a sensible review of net zero is long overdue and it will appeal to more than you think

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic.
It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).

Big_G_NorthWales

Mexicanpete said:

Claire Coutinho calling on Independent Peer and former Labour voter Michelle Mone to resign. Claire is one to watch!

Not sure why you write fake news about Tory Peer Mone voting labour (maybe you think it is clever) but she should be made to resign from the HOL

She is a disgrace, but Mandelson is the same and should do the same

Nigelb

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

Frankly, a sensible review of net zero is long overdue and it will appeal to more than you think

"Will scrap it" is not the same thing as a "sensible review".

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

rcs1000

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

Malmesbury

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic.
It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).

Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.

The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.

LostPassword

rcs1000 said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

There’s no point the UK spending money trying to alleviate climate change if the USA aren’t. We should be spending the money alleviating the effects, instead. Things like flood prevention, building more reservoirs, making electricity supply and transport infrastructure more wind resistant, for example.

On the other hand, the UK has a large current account deficit, and is a net energy importer. Encouraging people through the tax system to be efficient with imported energy is smart.

It feels like wasted effort compared to concentrating on adding more renewable and storage capacity to the grid and aiming to make use of Britain's massive wind energy potential to give Britain an energy surplus it can export and use to support energy-intensive industry.

Nigelb

it's now "despicable" even to question open corruption in the US.

Q: “How did the White House decide that it is appropriate for Jared Kushner to be working on matters that involve Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia—three countries that combined have given him more than $2.5 billion for his investment firm?”

Leavitt: “I think it’s frankly despicable that you’re trying to suggest that it’s inappropriate.”
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1973449899715768666

FeersumEnjineeya

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.

Big_G_NorthWales

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

Frankly, a sensible review of net zero is long overdue and it will appeal to more than you think

"Will scrap it" is not the same thing as a "sensible review".

Depends on what replaces it

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

If he can buy the political governments with an ideology to which he approves and shares, that is a big pull to earn more cash and spend it wisely.

OnlyLivingBoy

LostPassword said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

The issue is that the system is/was funded on a pay as you go basis.

When the baby boomer generation was "paying-in" they were supporting a smaller retired cohort, so they didn't have to pay in as much as it would cost to provide their own pensions. So the current working generation is now asked to make higher contributions to support a larger retired cohort - but likely they too are not paying in enough to cover their own pensions, when the ratio between the retired and working will likely be worse.

There's no good answer to this problem. You were lied to when you were making your contributions.

Agreed 100%.

rottenborough

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.

CBI have come out against her plans.

If Tories can't keep the CBI on board what hope have they got.

It's just Farage-lite now

Big_G_NorthWales

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

I would just say that the prices of new build property around us is way out of the pocket of local buyers

Of course local authorities in Wales are implementing surcharges on second homes which next year will be a 200% uplift in Conwy

Local Estate Agents tell me a lot of second home owners are selling up and indeed, my daughter, following her divorce, is buying one such property

Morris_Dancer

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

rcs1000

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

American politicians are very expensive.

BartholomewRoberts

LostPassword said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

The issue is that the system is/was funded on a pay as you go basis.

When the baby boomer generation was "paying-in" they were supporting a smaller retired cohort, so they didn't have to pay in as much as it would cost to provide their own pensions. So the current working generation is now asked to make higher contributions to support a larger retired cohort - but likely they too are not paying in enough to cover their own pensions, when the ratio between the retired and working will likely be worse.

There's no good answer to this problem. You were lied to when you were making your contributions.

In addition those working today are not only having to fund the costs of those who did not pay enough to fund their own retirement, but also the debt interest from past expenditures which were not funded too.

No matter how you slice it, the current generation of retirees have not funded their own retirement, quite the opposite, they've passed on the costs of their retirement to future generations as well as some of the costs of their working lives to future generations too.

LostPassword

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

The point is that he owns large controlling stakes in three (four?) hugely important companies - Tesla, Spacex, twitter (and an AI one) - and gets to make decisions about what those companies do and invest their money on.

The value the market ascribes to those companies is kinda secondary (though it lets him borrow loads of money to buy other companies, etc). If he actually wanted to spend the $500bn he'd have to give up control of the companies, so he doesn't actually have that money in the way we'd normally think of it.

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Claire Coutinho calling on Independent Peer and former Labour voter Michelle Mone to resign. Claire is one to watch!

Not sure why you write fake news about Tory Peer Mone voting labour (maybe you think it is clever) but she should be made to resign from the HOL

She is a disgrace, but Mandelson is the same and should do the same

She was widely accepted to be a New Labour supporter back in the day.

I doubt any other "friends and family" beneficiary will ever see the inside of a court. I suspect she and Dougie will. She is the sacrificial lamb. Her background lends itself to being the sacrificial lamb.

LostPassword

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic.
It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).

Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.

The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.

This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.

Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.

kinabalu

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.

I would too. I'd probably need to go to A&E straight afterwards but I'd do it. I'm spared only because I live in a seat where the turquoise don't have a prayer.

Foss

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

JosiasJessop

LostPassword said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

The point is that he owns large controlling stakes in three (four?) hugely important companies - Tesla, Spacex, twitter (and an AI one) - and gets to make decisions about what those companies do and invest their money on.

The value the market ascribes to those companies is kinda secondary (though it lets him borrow loads of money to buy other companies, etc). If he actually wanted to spend the $500bn he'd have to give up control of the companies, so he doesn't actually have that money in the way we'd normally think of it.

I suspect the value of Tesla is now pretty much decoupled from anything they do, and is now largely dependent on Musk's relationship with the government.

Flatlander

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

I would just say that the prices of new build property around us is way out of the pocket of local buyers

Of course local authorities in Wales are implementing surcharges on second homes which next year will be a 200% uplift in Conwy

Local Estate Agents tell me a lot of second home owners are selling up and indeed, my daughter, following her divorce, is buying one such property

If the market was mostly driven by second home owners then surely that will just even out in the long term.

It will hit current owners but new ones will just pay a lower price and a bit more council tax.

Leon

Foss said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

I hope the BBC aren’t infiltrating PB, because remarks like that could be taken out of context, to make us all look bad

rcs1000

LostPassword said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Elon Musk becomes the world's first half trillionaire

"Musk becomes first person ever to see wealth top $500bn" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89d3547npjo

You have to ask 'what is the point'

You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy

The point is that he owns large controlling stakes in three (four?) hugely important companies - Tesla, Spacex, twitter (and an AI one) - and gets to make decisions about what those companies do and invest their money on.

The value the market ascribes to those companies is kinda secondary (though it lets him borrow loads of money to buy other companies, etc). If he actually wanted to spend the $500bn he'd have to give up control of the companies, so he doesn't actually have that money in the way we'd normally think of it.

Twitter and the AI one are the same, as xAI bought Twitter. (It was an all stock deal designed to hide how much money he'd burnt.)

Of his three main holdings, xAI is very good, but it's no better than Anthropic or OpenAI - indeed, it's probably a little bit behind them. Nobody has really managed to achieve an AI breakout where they end up running away from competitors in terms of capability. In fact, you could argue that the ease at which Google and xAI (and even DeepSeek and Kimi) have caught up suggests that's not happening.

Tesla is struggling. Partly that's because the Chinese (and even the Europeans to an extent) have caught up. Partly that's because Elon trashed the brand with the very people who buy Teslas. And partly it's because I feel he's made some very uncharacteristic missteps. Ditching the Model 2, and throwing everything behind the Cybertruck has to be one of the worst business decsisions in history. And it's far from clear that Cybercabs are going to clear the exceptionally high hurdle regulators are going to require for safety. (See the accidents in Austin.)

SpaceX is the truly amazing one: that's the holding I'd reckon is probably still undervalued, although even there is reason to be cautious around Starship.

Fairliered

JosiasJessop said:

Razedabode said:

Talking about Labour and their budget woes - they probably need to start looking at the railways again https://www.cityam.com/south-western-railway-performance-nosedives-after-nationalisation/

Another glorious success

It's still early days, but it's an ominous sign.

As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.

Scotrail has improved since it was nationalised.

StillWaters

LostPassword said:

StillWaters said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Actually they almost never cut: they reduce the rate of growth.

Fundamentally they need to do two things:

- go through the entire list of programmes and decide which to abandon. Salami slicing everything doesn’t work - it just degrades everything without saving much money

- go through the cost of delivery and figure out how to do it better and cheaper/. This is not easy or glamorous work, but it’s the sort of grinding efficiency that the private sector looks for the whole time

The most important thing they need to do is to get people lower down the responsibility and accountability chain also working on improving efficiency of spending. People who are actually doing the work and understand the problems need to be empowered to solve them.

At the moment we have a situation where vast sums off money are being spent on taxis because the centre has mandated that the service has to be provided, but hasn't devolved the autonomy to allow people to find a better way of doing so, or a more reasonable threshold for supplying that service.

I don't think we can meaningfully increase the efficiency of public spending without the centre letting go of considerable power. That's going to lead to lots of mistakes being made in local areas, but we then need to have a system that will correct those mistakes and spread better ways of doing things.

This is the sort of thing that an open democracy should be good at, but instead Britain is increasingly run like a centralised dictatorship, with most people treated as mindless automatons who can't be trusted to think for themselves.

Agreed - that’s been a general problem across teacher, doctors as well: leadership doesn’t trust professionals

Fairliered

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

So let's say I own a house worth 500k. Next year the value increases to 550k so I have to pay CGT. The following year afterwards the value drops back down to 500k. Does the Government now give me a refund?

No, but you don’t pay any more CGT until your house value rises above £550k again.

Mexicanpete

Leon said:

Foss said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

I hope the BBC aren’t infiltrating PB, because remarks like that could be taken out of context, to make us all look bad

It is a truly vile atrocity. One can guess the unjustified rationale of the perpetrator. Let us wait until GMP confirm that reality.

I hope Farage comments only after he has verified whatever Andrew Tate posts on X.

Battlebus

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

Perhaps in the spirit of Patriotic Renewal (© Labour Party) we should ban (unrented) second homes. This would go a long way to meeting the housing target. To encourage this, perhaps a waiver on CGT if the released funds were invested in British Companies employing British People.

[Am I sounding more like Gordon Brown or Nigel or Sir Keir?]

In 2021-22, 2.1 million households reported having at least one second property. Most of these households let their second property out in the private rented sector, though just over a third (712,000 households) used their property as a second home (Live Table FA2601).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet

StillWaters

IanB2 said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

Nonsense

What’s nonsense about it?

- request for evidence on non contribution
- Personal statement
- “Would help plunge” a little emotive but difficult to disprove
- “Needs reform” - belief statement
- “Little big savings” horrible grammar but a true statement

JosiasJessop

Fairliered said:

JosiasJessop said:

Razedabode said:

Talking about Labour and their budget woes - they probably need to start looking at the railways again https://www.cityam.com/south-western-railway-performance-nosedives-after-nationalisation/

Another glorious success

It's still early days, but it's an ominous sign.

As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.

Scotrail has improved since it was nationalised.

Indeed, and that kind-of proves my point, as Scotrail's overall decisions are made by a different team to England and Wales'. (Transport Scotland rather than the DfT).

StillWaters

MattW said:

I was predicting VAT on Private Medicine, but I see that Wes Streeting has just ruled it out.

I don't understand his logic.

I was chatting to a lawyer about this yesterday. He pointed out that most private insurance is bought by companies as a staff benefit. The staff are the members but the companies are the clients. They could therefore reclaim the VAT (assuming they have capacity) so it wouldn’t raise very much

Phil

Oh look, the East Coast Main Line is running absolutely flat out, with no room for any more trains, despite the demand for them from both passenger & freight services: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/east-coast-main-line-timetable-balance-had-to-be-struck-for-all-users-says-network-rail

Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?

Foss

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

Foss said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

I hope the BBC aren’t infiltrating PB, because remarks like that could be taken out of context, to make us all look bad

It is a truly vile atrocity. One can guess the unjustified rationale of the perpetrator. Let us wait until GMP confirm that reality.

I hope Farage comments only after he has verified whatever Andrew Tate posts on X.

You don't need to know why they did it to know that stabbing people is bad.

Battlebus

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic.
It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).

Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.

The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.

This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.

Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.

To where?

StillWaters

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

Consequence would be fewer people would sell.

Base cost 20
Sale price 120
Capital gain of 100
Tax of 25
Available capital of 20 + (100-25) =95

Consequence: next house is smaller or in a less nice area

Big_G_NorthWales

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.

Not sure the logic in that

If you were to tactically vote conservative to keep out Reform how not doing so pevent a Reform win ?

Mexicanpete

Foss said:

Mexicanpete said:

Leon said:

Foss said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

I hope the BBC aren’t infiltrating PB, because remarks like that could be taken out of context, to make us all look bad

It is a truly vile atrocity. One can guess the unjustified rationale of the perpetrator. Let us wait until GMP confirm that reality.

I hope Farage comments only after he has verified whatever Andrew Tate posts on X.

You don't need to know why they did it to know that stabbing people is bad.

Driving a vehicle into a crowd outside a Synagogue on Yom Kippur and then stabbing one of the injured is undoubtedly evil.

The question on certain lips will be " what is the perpetrator's ethnicity, creed and were they asylum seekers?" I was suggesting that question is better left for confirmation by GMP.

Nigelb

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Who is she appealing to?

Frankly, a sensible review of net zero is long overdue and it will appeal to more than you think

"Will scrap it" is not the same thing as a "sensible review".

Depends on what replaces it

No it doesn't.
Had she said "we will urgently review", then you'd be correct.
As it is, she's just pandering to the lobby that think climate change should effectively be ignored.

rcs1000

Battlebus said:

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

Perhaps in the spirit of Patriotic Renewal (© Labour Party) we should ban (unrented) second homes. This would go a long way to meeting the housing target. To encourage this, perhaps a waiver on CGT if the released funds were invested in British Companies employing British People.

[Am I sounding more like Gordon Brown or Nigel or Sir Keir?]

In 2021-22, 2.1 million households reported having at least one second property. Most of these households let their second property out in the private rented sector, though just over a third (712,000 households) used their property as a second home (Live Table FA2601).

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet

The ban hammer should be wielded only very rarely: the right answer is almost always to encourage via the tax system.

BartholomewRoberts

StillWaters said:

IanB2 said:

scampi25 said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.

Nonsense

What’s nonsense about it?

- request for evidence on non contribution
- Personal statement
- “Would help plunge” a little emotive but difficult to disprove
- “Needs reform” - belief statement
- “Little big savings” horrible grammar but a true statement

Decades of deficits and no defined contribution savings set aside = evidence of non-contribution.

Would plunge is nonsense. If pensions were tied to either inflation or wage rises then it would keep the real terms value of pensions in line rather than ratchet it up only in one direction. Nothing would go down.

"Little big savings" is an entirely false statement, it is our number one budget expenditure item. Even a small percentage reduction in expenditure would be massive savings. A small slice of a very big pie is a considerable sum of money.

Mexicanpete

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Kemi Badenoch says she would repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and scrap the net zero by 2050 target

"Tories pledge to scrap landmark climate legislation - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrp2k3m3deo

Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.

She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.

Not sure the logic in that

If you were to tactically vote conservative to keep out Reform how not doing so pevent a Reform win ?

If the Conservatives don't rule out a pact with Reform after introducing Reform-lite policies, then a vote for any other party who can depose Reform is a better use of the anti-Farage vote.

Big_G_NorthWales

Flatlander said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rcs1000 said:

rkrkrk said:

rcs1000 said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.

Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...

As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.

At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.

That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.

One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.

Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.

I would just say that the prices of new build property around us is way out of the pocket of local buyers

Of course local authorities in Wales are implementing surcharges on second homes which next year will be a 200% uplift in Conwy

Local Estate Agents tell me a lot of second home owners are selling up and indeed, my daughter, following her divorce, is buying one such property

If the market was mostly driven by second home owners then surely that will just even out in the long term.

It will hit current owners but new ones will just pay a lower price and a bit more council tax.

Its actually a lot more council tax

In my case if it was applicable it would rise from £4,000 to £12,000 pa

MaxPB

Phil said:

Oh look, the East Coast Main Line is running absolutely flat out, with no room for any more trains, despite the demand for them from both passenger & freight services: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/east-coast-main-line-timetable-balance-had-to-be-struck-for-all-users-says-network-rail

Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?

Explain how it would be profitable when the capital investment required will be something like £100bn, the debt interest alone will be £4.5bn per year to clear, there's absolutely no way a project like this will ever be profitable unless the government is willing to take a gigantic loss on the capital with at least 80% of the debt being transferred from the line to the taxpayer.

Unless the cost of investment is radically altered I don't ever see big projects like these are being feasible.

BartholomewRoberts

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

So let's say I own a house worth 500k. Next year the value increases to 550k so I have to pay CGT. The following year afterwards the value drops back down to 500k. Does the Government now give me a refund?

The sensible way to do it is to have a percentage annual charge but no CGT on sales. That way anyone downsizing sees a reduction in their bill, they don't end up with a huge bill that puts them off from doing that.

Also it means that if the value increases then, yes, your taxes go up. However if your value decreases, then your taxes go down.

Falling prices = falling taxes would help correct some of the perversion in the market that sees many people view price rises as an unalloyed good thing as they're benefiting from the rise and not paying for it themselves.

Nigelb

Leon said:

Foss said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Breaking news of stabbing at a synagogue:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx2703lnww4t

Looks like they’ve shot the bastard.

I hope the BBC aren’t infiltrating PB, because remarks like that could be taken out of context, to make us all look bad

In what context would calling a marauding knife wielder, who'd run down and/or stabbed four people, a "bastard" make us look bad ?

isam

StillWaters said:

Fairliered said:

Cicero said:

geoffw said:

Always tax rises never cut current spending

The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.

I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities.
It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!

Consequence would be fewer people would sell.

Base cost 20
Sale price 120
Capital gain of 100
Tax of 25
Available capital of 20 + (100-25) =95

Consequence: next house is smaller or in a less nice area

I have made a real howler when it comes to Capital Gains Tax - I bought a flat in 2002 and lived in it sometimes, at others I moved nearer work and rented/let the flat out. Then I rented a house in the next road to my flat for roughly the same rent as I wanted a garden and had tenants settled in.... as I didn't own another property, it didn't occur to me that I would be liable for CGT. So now I am loathe to ever sell it. Hoping PM Farage cuts CGT