Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Higgins was the moral conscience of Ireland and wasn't afraid to call out atrocious behaviour by other countries. Connolly is likely to take a similar approach.
Higgins and Connolly no doubt think of themselves as the moral conscience of Ireland. In reality, they express much the same views as Jeremy Corbyn, anti-Western, anti-NATO, extreme left.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
But the country is still majority English-speaking.
I'm not suggesting they'll elect a President who can't speak English.
(A friend of my wife's has talked about one oul fella she's met in her Gaeltacht area who can't speak English, but I imagine he's one of the last Irish-speaking monoglots.)
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
Private philanthropy for public good is a much more established tradition in the US (as it used to be here before 1945).
“First,” Painter said in an email, “this is use of public office for private gain in violation of federal ethics rules.” He cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which says government employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee.”
Painter also said the ballroom project raises a “problem under the Antideficiency Act.” The act “prohibits federal agencies from receiving voluntary services or other gifts from outside sources to ‘top off’ funds appropriated by Congress,” Painter explained.
“Of course the White House will argue that it is not an ‘agency’ subject to this law, but in the past the White House abided by this law. We did during the Bush Administration. The White House did not have authority to receive gifts,” he said.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Antideficiency Act “requires agencies to generally stop their operations” during a government shutdown. “This protects Congress’s power over federal spending by preventing the executive branch from operating without funding. This act prohibits agencies from incurring obligations or making payments in advance or in excess of an appropriation.”
“Bottom line is,” the companies making donations for the ballroom construction “want something from the government and they are paying 1) for access to the President and other high ranking officials, and 2) Hoping it will buy them what they want. Many such as Lockheed Martin want big defense department contracts, so our now trillion dollar defense budget … will grow even more, all so we can save taxpayers $200 million building a ballroom the White House doesn’t need,” Painter said.
“Finally the ballroom will be used to entertain big campaign donors by this and future presidents, perpetuating White House pay to play,” he said...
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
To be fair, it was striking the extent to which the various podcasts I have been listening to after Caerphilly have almost entirely neglected to mention the winner - Plaid. While I don't think Labour/Conservatives can complain, I think the other left-wing parties do have a case.
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
But the country is still majority English-speaking.
I'm not suggesting they'll elect a President who can't speak English.
(A friend of my wife's has talked about one oul fella she's met in her Gaeltacht area who can't speak English, but I imagine he's one of the last Irish-speaking monoglots.)
More likely he spoke it very well and pretended not to for laughs.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
But the country is still majority English-speaking.
I'm not suggesting they'll elect a President who can't speak English.
(A friend of my wife's has talked about one oul fella she's met in her Gaeltacht area who can't speak English, but I imagine he's one of the last Irish-speaking monoglots.)
More likely he spoke it very well and pretended not to for laughs.
In general that's quite possible, but in this circumstance he would have been keeping up the pretence for some time given that he's known on the island for it, and she's been living there for years now.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
a) Most Kings would let you protest against them these days. Generally they can't do anything about it, even if they wish. We can.
b) Context is everything. No Kings is a historical reference, as we are all aware. It represents their fight for democracy against George III and the fact that Trump is rolling back that change. Not to Charles obviously but to Trump himself.
c) It is a rather clever two words to express those feelings. It is not supposed to be analysed or taken literally. It is a complaint of Trump acting like or tending towards an old fashioned King or modern Dictator.
Federalist paper 74 expresses it quite well.
..The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny...
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Higgins was the moral conscience of Ireland and wasn't afraid to call out atrocious behaviour by other countries. Connolly is likely to take a similar approach.
Higgins and Connolly no doubt think of themselves as the moral conscience of Ireland. In reality, they express much the same views as Jeremy Corbyn, anti-Western, anti-NATO, extreme left.
Notice how it's the European countries most useless when it comes to Russia, such as Ireland and Spain, who get most irate about Israel.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
To be fair, it was striking the extent to which the various podcasts I have been listening to after Caerphilly have almost entirely neglected to mention the winner - Plaid. While I don't think Labour/Conservatives can complain, I think the other left-wing parties do have a case.
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
Maybe PC is Welsh so seen as simply irrelevant to the various podcasters who DGAS if it isn't a party represented in the metropolis (speaking broadly)? Not as if they are standing in Hartlepool or Epping.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly they couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
Mind you if I was Russian I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Tsar to Putin, if I was Chinese I would prefer to restore the closest living relative of the last Emperor than have Xi and if I was French I would prefer to restore Jean IV, Count of Paris or Louis Alphonse De Bourbon rather than have Macron or next time maybe even Bardella, Le Pen or Melencon as head of state.
Perhaps a few Americans now with Trump as head of state are rather regretting the fact they removed King George III in the US War of Independence and would prefer to have George III's descendant King Charles III rather than Trump as their head of state, much as Canadians do
Those who don’t like Trump were out protesting last weekend, under the banner “No Kings”.
Forgetting that an actual king wouldn’t let them protest against him.
I've seen various people defending Trump's demolition without permission (historic monuments bodies etc) of part of the Whitehouse on the basis that it is less than done by "The British".
Bloody Trump; can't demolish anything properly, except his reputation and the USA Constitutional Democracy.
Most of the critisicm is totally performative by Democrats. Presidents have been rebuilding the WH in various ways for two centuries, and there’s plenty of quotes from former Obama staffers saying that they wished they had a proper function room rather than having to host parties in tents on the lawn. The bits that are being removed were minor secretarial offices often not used. Trump’s also managed to get the project funded privately from donations, with no public money involved.
Or, as we also call them, 'bribes.'
It goes a bit beyond bribes. It's getting the billionaires to sign on to a piece of public illegality. A symbolic dipping of hands in blood.
As I understand it, it isn’t illegal to demolish the East Wing - certain government buildings are exempt from all the usual protections and laws. The Capitol and Whitehouse are two of them.
This goes back a long way and is of similar ilk to the other immunities and perished Washington politicians have voted themselves.
It’s just gross.
Isn't that just the Usonian equivalent of Crown Immunity?
No - IIRC the group of buildings are specifically excluded from the laws and regulations. They are actually enumerated as exempt.
Thanks. More like Parliament estate then.
That’s related to the laws regarding palaces - rather than a specific exemption for Westminster.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
To be fair, it was striking the extent to which the various podcasts I have been listening to after Caerphilly have almost entirely neglected to mention the winner - Plaid. While I don't think Labour/Conservatives can complain, I think the other left-wing parties do have a case.
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
Well that’s a podcast. This cartoon is taking aim at the BBC. The mainstream news I saw on Beeb and ITV, as well as on Social media the likes of SKY, certainly did cover extensively Plaid being the winner, with a mention it was bad for Reform.
I suspect the Greens, like Reform, when they have politics subject to scrutiny will start to fall back. It remains to be seen the impact Your Party has on the Greens too. Both fighting for the same space and also will the Greens lose votes in the shires from people who,don’t got for their gender/palestine/wealth tax now agenda.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
To be fair, it was striking the extent to which the various podcasts I have been listening to after Caerphilly have almost entirely neglected to mention the winner - Plaid. While I don't think Labour/Conservatives can complain, I think the other left-wing parties do have a case.
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
Maybe PC is Welsh so seen as simply irrelevant to the various podcasters who DGAS if it isn't a party represented in the metropolis (speaking broadly)? Not as if they are standing in Hartlepool or Epping.
Edit: not suggesting it's a valid excuse.
Possible, but that doesn't explain the Greens who could be well represented in the kind of cities that these podcasters live in.
That's from 28 down to 26 in Cornwall, plus one more on sick leave who has never attended the local Town Council in her district when invited, but lives 40 miles away. And a loss of both Council Leader and Deputy Leader.
I it reaches number 38 by the end of November, I can make an advent calendar running through to Orthodox Christmas in January.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
At a distance Connolly seems fairly restrained to me, and the result suggests that the cute hoor pols and rightwing media of Ireland trying to portray her as a blood drinking communist backfired badly.
Over a third of Irish still voted against her and that was even before she took office
By that logic two thirds back her
63% of the valid votes cast were for Connolly. She has said quite clearly that she will respect the Constitutional limits on the Presidency, which means she represents continuity with Higgins - giving voice to the Irish consensus on neutrality and opposition to genocide and little else - but with superior ball control. Perhaps she will inspire the Irish soccer team.
One consequence of QEII speaking Irish during her state visit to Ireland is that it now appears very difficult for a non-Irish speaker - like Connolly's opponent (Humphreys) in the election - to be elected to the Presidency. You couldn't have the British Royals showing more respect for the Irish language than the Irish President.
Back the best Irish speaker at the next competitive Irish Presidential election in 2039.
But the country is still majority English-speaking.
I'm not suggesting they'll elect a President who can't speak English.
(A friend of my wife's has talked about one oul fella she's met in her Gaeltacht area who can't speak English, but I imagine he's one of the last Irish-speaking monoglots.)
The most annoying thing about the Irish Census is that there is no data on how many can only speak English as mother tongue (or main language), or how many can only speak Irish as mother tongue (or main language). But we do know who speak neither as mother tongue or main language. I have a similar gripe against the Welsh Census when it comes to Welsh!
So for example, in 2022, the Irish Census told us:
Total population: 4,975,713 Spoke neither English NOR Irish "at home": 751,507 or 15.10% (and a breakdown by language was provided) Spoke Irish "outside the Education System" = 71,968 or 1.45% (I presume this would be the Gaeltacht population)
I guess we could "infer" the English spoken "at home" population is (Total minus Neither minus Irish outside the education system) = 4,152,238 or 83.45%, but the Census didn't say that explicitly!
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
What a bunch of cry babies. A smallish party with a charismatic leader is leading the polls of course they are going to get publicity.
Strange mindset from these centrists; they can't have proportional coverage of politics based on what is actually happening, but insist on disproportional representations of the demographic in advertising
It’s utterly pathetic but feeds into the grievance mongering from other parties over their poll slump. Always someone else to blame. The BBC, LauraK, Chris Mason.
Not their political party being shit and having a track record of failure.
To be fair, it was striking the extent to which the various podcasts I have been listening to after Caerphilly have almost entirely neglected to mention the winner - Plaid. While I don't think Labour/Conservatives can complain, I think the other left-wing parties do have a case.
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
Maybe PC is Welsh so seen as simply irrelevant to the various podcasters who DGAS if it isn't a party represented in the metropolis (speaking broadly)? Not as if they are standing in Hartlepool or Epping.
Edit: not suggesting it's a valid excuse.
The biggest story is an epic contest between Reform and the Not Reform party. It is absolute box office, and every single person with a vote is part of the poor bloody infantry.
Sub sections of this story are the complexities of the Not Reform party as Labour, which should be leading the party, has collapsed, and the Tories are at present part of the Reform faction as the rest (eg me) have left.
PC, outside Wales, is of no interest in itself for now, except as part of the Not Reform party. It would only be of interest as PC if it wins a lot of seats in a GE, and also Wales shows real signs of wanting independence and knowing how to attain it.
Outside Wales almost nobody is aware that Wales has some sort of parliament. Wales, its parliament and PC isn't box office for now.
The focus of interest follows as night follows day.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Your last paragraph is why we should introduce a tax like this alongside the abolition of stamp duty.
Someone who downsizes is doing the right thing for society but is currently punished, heavily, by taxation for doing so as a large sum will need to be paid out in stamp duty on their new property.
Instead it would be better if anyone who downsizes got a tax cut and faced no extra taxation. It would incentivise people to do the right thing.
Keeping stamp duty in place while adding this would mean people are damned either way and is the worst of all worlds.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there for three decades, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
Prince Andrew faces humiliation at historic Commons debate
MPs plan to defy convention and discuss stripping Andrew of his titles for good as pressure to leave Royal Lodge builds
Prince Andrew faces a pincer movement from parliament and Buckingham Palace to strip him of his dukedom and banish him from his 30-room mansion in Windsor.
MPs are set to discuss Andrew’s future, defying years of convention that usually prevents politicians from criticising the royal family.
The Liberal Democrats have signalled that they intend to use their next Opposition Day debate to allow members to consider officially removing Andrew’s Duke of York title and discuss his continued use of Royal Lodge. Although such debates are rarely binding, it will allow the Commons to “express its will” and heap pressure on the government and the King to act...
...By convention, MPs are not allowed to criticise royals in the Commons. Opposition Day debates are one of the only ways the conduct of a royal can be raised. According to Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary procedure, such a debate permits “critical language of a kind which would not be allowed in speeches in debate”.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has separately called for Andrew and his landlord, the Crown Estate, to give evidence to MPs on an influential select committee about the terms of the lease on Royal Lodge.
If the pincer movement includes Buckingham Palaces I hope karma bites them on the arse. Examining Andrew’s messy finances might open a whole can of worms regarding their own pecuniary arrangements.
We begin to see why the Prince of Wales has chosen a relatively small mansion to move into. The Monarchy is actually in some considerable danger as a result of Andrew's various sins. Those who witter on about "our future King" may learn a nasty lesson about "events". In general we are are prepared to tolerate a hard working, decent Royal family, even if we know the flummery and the grovelling are rather silly. If however, letting light into the "magic" reveals a Bluebeard's cave of greedy and self serving shits, then they will be out bag and baggage. Edward VIII, Princess Margaret, Andrew- in fact the Royal house has been shaky for the last century and it is obvious, even to the "firm" that a crisis is coming. While not as serious as the problems of the Norwegian royal house, the crisis in the Windsors is going to grow and support for the Monarchy will fall substantially. It is time we had a grown up conversation about the rights and duties of the Monarchy, and while we're about it over haul all of our creaking, nineteenth century constitution. That, I suspect, is what Ed Davey is intending in his current line of asking for a debate on the current crisis.
I think you're overegging the cake.
The alternative to the monarchy is having a political head of state. Compare and contrast support for the King and support for Starmer.
Er, logic fail. Other perfectly possible alternatives are:
a) non political head for life/set term - someone of the ilk Sir David Attenborough (not an option now, but just as an example). b) different RF. OK, this means a new head of the C of E, but we've been assured on here that that's no problem in terms of divine right/anointment/will etc. given previous changes.
Neither is likely - but they do exist.
"Would you rather have Prince Andy or Sir David for King?" would be an interesting polling question. I won't speculate on (b).
a) Supposedly the Irish model, they have just elected a far leftist anti Israel candidate as head of state who made sympathetic noises about Brexit with nearly 40% still voting against her. So that argument fails and Attenborough is a monarchist and nearly 100 anyway. b) Prince William is far more popular than Farage, Starmer, Badenoch or Davey so not an issue and of course a monarch still needs royal blood someone along the line
I was pointing out those logical categories and their existence. You can't change that.
Well republicans will always push that line but the only main party whose leader is officially a republican is the Greens, even the SNP and Plaid are not pushing against the monarchy at the moment and even the SF leader has met and has a good relationship with the King.
There are no votes in pushing republicanism in the UK beyond hard left parties
Happened before. Look at Ireland. Used to have a King.
Yes and as I said now elected a very political far leftist who has made comments favourable to Hamas and pro Brexit for what is supposed to be a ceremonial role.
If in a few years the Irish want the King back as their head of state I am sure he will be willing
Desmond O'Conor Don is the legitimate successor to the High Kingship based on his descent from the last High King of Ireland. He lives in East Sussex. I'm not sure whether he would be willing. He's not political as far as I can see.
If I was Irish I would restore the High Kings, certainly he couldn't be worse than Connolly as head of state.
...
You barely noticed that Higgins was President of Ireland for the last fourteen years, it's going to be of almost zero consequence that Connolly is President now.
The important thing is that she's a figurehead President with zero Executive authority, so it hardly matters who she is, just as it hardly matters who the Monarch is in Britain.
Higgins was the moral conscience of Ireland and wasn't afraid to call out atrocious behaviour by other countries. Connolly is likely to take a similar approach.
Hard to square someone wandering around Syria approvingly with Bashar al Assad as a "moral conscience".
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
Yeah but she is a female child, not high up on Roger's priority list.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Yep, on HPI it's £2 million, and 1% is £20k. There will be a huge behavioural response to that - small flats will become much more popular (prices will surge), and larger houses will only be sought out by people raising families (prices will drop). Not a bad outcome IMO, though the amount raised will be much lower as a result.
As such, and as others have said above, I'd much rather it was a blanket 1% and replaced Stamp Duty, Council Tax (at least), but even in isolation it's probably a good policy.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
"My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k."
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The Mail story says the 1% is on the value over £2m. So if worth £2.5 m, the tax would be £5000.
However everyone important in the media either lives in a +£2m house, or intends to in due course, so assume they will take rather more interest in this than they do in the amount of benefit jobless, non disabled, non ill, no children, single people receive off the state.
Just as everyone in the media intends one day to be a pensioner with an ultra low tax regime, so the unfairnesses of this are not important.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
That's exactly how it feels to be living in a flat in Middlesbrough though - they are sometimes paying 2.5% of their property value in council tax.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
That's exactly how it feels to be living in a flat in Middlesbrough though - they are sometimes paying 2.5% of their property value in council tax.
The problem is that you have to tax property because unlike most other things it can't be hidden. But property taxes are either fantastically regressive, or don't raise enough, or upset important people in the media.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
That's exactly how it feels to be living in a flat in Middlesbrough though - they are sometimes paying 2.5% of their property value in council tax.
Ten years of that and you've been charged 1/4 of the value of the flat.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there for three decades, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
He's not too poor to live there. Between the two of them I'm sure my Dad and step-mother could afford the tax.
But still. £20k pa is a lot of money if they can avoid it by moving to a smaller house that doesn't have four empty guest bedrooms. Although it would take several years to recoup the money lost on stamp duty and other moving costs.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
Oh, really? I thought cliff edges in the tax system were all the rage?
Not going to make a smidgen of a difference to my Dad then.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
That's exactly how it feels to be living in a flat in Middlesbrough though - they are sometimes paying 2.5% of their property value in council tax.
Yes, because the cost of what the council does in Middlesbrough isn’t directly proportional to the price of houses there, when compared to say London.
London isn’t paying their care workers 10x what Middlesbrough does.
EPA Commissioner Lee Zeldin announces his agency is launching a major investigation into the right-wing conspiracies about chemtrails and weather manipulation to get to the bottom of it. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1981395757136826520
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Yep, on HPI it's £2 million, and 1% is £20k. There will be a huge behavioural response to that - small flats will become much more popular (prices will surge), and larger houses will only be sought out by people raising families (prices will drop). Not a bad outcome IMO, though the amount raised will be much lower as a result.
As such, and as others have said above, I'd much rather it was a blanket 1% and replaced Stamp Duty, Council Tax (at least), but even in isolation it's probably a good policy.
It’s a good idea in theory, but it would have to do more than replace council tax. The reason being, those councils with greatest demands on the purses tend to be in the poorest areas with the lowest house prices (e.g. Stoke, Bradford) and would massively lose out as a result. Meanwhile Surrey Heath or Abingdon would be minted.
It would have to therefore mean an end to local rate raising and everything go on a central government block grant.
Not making any judgement as to whether that’s a bad or good thing, just raising the point.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?.
Extrapolated 1992 values, as a series of sort of quasi council tax band i.e H1 for the 1992 equivalent of £2.1m up to H100 for £12m and so on... some wheeze like that would be my guess.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there for three decades, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
He's not too poor to live there. Between the two of them I'm sure my Dad and step-mother could afford the tax.
But still. £20k pa is a lot of money if they can avoid it by moving to a smaller house that doesn't have four empty guest bedrooms. Although it would take several years to recoup the money lost on stamp duty and other moving costs.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
EPA Commissioner Lee Zeldin announces his agency is launching a major investigation into the right-wing conspiracies about chemtrails and weather manipulation to get to the bottom of it. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1981395757136826520
Anakin and Padme meme:
The EPA are going to get to the bottom of who made up these conspiracies, right?
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That makes much more sense, but won’t raise any serious money.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Rachel will say that’s exactly what she wants to see happen, people downsizing. She’ll pick up a chunk of stamp duty on two more sales as well.
Just ignore that your father has lived there all his life, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
That's exactly how it feels to be living in a flat in Middlesbrough though - they are sometimes paying 2.5% of their property value in council tax.
Yes, because the cost of what the council does in Middlesbrough isn’t directly proportional to the price of houses there, when compared to say London.
London isn’t paying their care workers 10x what Middlesbrough does.
The problem is the overwhelming majority of what the Councils spend their money on is determined by Westminster statute.
So Westminster having determined the money should be spent should pick up the tab.
Care rights should either be determined locally, which its not, or funded through central taxation and billed to the DHSC.
Similiary SEND rights should either be determined locally, or centrally and billed to the DoE.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Yep, on HPI it's £2 million, and 1% is £20k. There will be a huge behavioural response to that - small flats will become much more popular (prices will surge), and larger houses will only be sought out by people raising families (prices will drop). Not a bad outcome IMO, though the amount raised will be much lower as a result.
As such, and as others have said above, I'd much rather it was a blanket 1% and replaced Stamp Duty, Council Tax (at least), but even in isolation it's probably a good policy.
It’s a good idea in theory, but it would have to do more than replace council tax. The reason being, those councils with greatest demands on the purses tend to be in the poorest areas with the lowest house prices (e.g. Stoke, Bradford) and would massively lose out as a result. Meanwhile Surrey Heath or Abingdon would be minted.
It would have to therefore mean an end to local rate raising and everything go on a central government block grant.
Not making any judgement as to whether that’s a bad or good thing, just raising the point.
Not sure about England/Wales but in Scotland that already happens via adjustments to the grant councils get from central government. You'd just extend that further.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
Since you can’t park in many town centres, due to restricted parking and high charges, this just raises the game. For online shopping.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That makes much more sense, but won’t raise any serious money.
Politics of envy again.
Not really. Isn't council tax effectively fixed for properties over 500k?
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
What hatred of private transport, all I see is a hatred of out of town shopping.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
Since you can’t park in many town centres, due to restricted parking and high charges, this just raises the game. For online shopping.
In my town centre it is 30 or 60 minutes free in the most central Council owned car parks, which seems quite reasonable. That is a good balance between "pop in" and "take up too much time in the short stay". There are longer-stay spots around if required.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
As we are discussing electoral systems, you may be wondering how Catherine Connolly was elected as Ireland President on the first count. The number of valid first-preference votes on the first count was N=1,442,698. The quota was therefore 1+0.5N= 1+(1,442,698/2) = 721,350. Since Connolly's first-preference votes were 914,143, they exceeded the quota and no further count was made as she had been elected on the first round.
I think if her first preference votes had not exceeded the quota, then the second-preference votes of the bottom candidate Jim Gavin would have redistributed to her and Heather Humphreys, a new quota calculated, and we go round again.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I do my week's shopping on my bike, FYI. So do lots of people in areas with good cycle infrastructure. I pick up stuff like milk and eggs by walking round to the corner shop.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I do my week's shopping on my bike, FYI. So do lots of people in areas with good cycle infrastructure. I pick up stuff like milk and eggs by walking round to the corner shop.
I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are not shopping for a family of 4.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
Since you can’t park in many town centres, due to restricted parking and high charges, this just raises the game. For online shopping.
In my town centre it is 30 or 60 minutes free in the most central Council owned car parks, which seems quite reasonable. That is a good balance between "pop in" and "take up too much time in the short stay". There are longer-stay spots around if required.
60 minutes would barely allow my wife to do a first sweep through one shop.
And then people wonder at the collapse on town shopping.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I do my week's shopping on my bike, FYI. So do lots of people in areas with good cycle infrastructure. I pick up stuff like milk and eggs by walking round to the corner shop.
I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are not shopping for a family of 4.
Nor are most people. Average household size in the UK is 2.4. I'm just going to get a cargo bike when that time comes, or else pop into Morrisons on the way back from work twice a week rather than once.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
This simply isn't true.
There are two main reasons why town centres are dying.
The first is because Councils are allowing the growth of edge of town and out of town retail parks - many of the high street shops in Newark (as an example) have moved to new, larger venues on the edge of the town.
The second is because smaller shops on the high street cannot compete with online shopping because of the huge disparity in taxes.
Parking plays almost no part in the equation - as is shown in examples such as Grantham which has very cheap or free parking but which still suffers the same problems of declining high streets.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?.
Extrapolated 1992 values, as a series of sort of quasi council tax band i.e H1 for the 1992 equivalent of £2.1m up to H100 for £12m and so on... some wheeze like that would be my guess.
A nice example of the sort of thing a government focussed on boring competence replacing a bunch of chancers would have done within a couple of years of taking over would be to update property valuation (not done since 1991) for tax purposes, and set up a statutory system requiring it to be done at least every X years.
There are loads of boring competence things to be done to make the country a better place without keeping on focussing on 'change'.
Part of the political sleight of hand about 'change' is that it fixes attention on jam tomorrow as the big achievement when it isn't. While at the same time boring stuff that needs doing (answering the phone, being contactable, Dilnot report on social care) is no part of the 'change' agenda. Radical transformation happens occasionally. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago is a good example, but for 150 million years dinosaurs looked to incremental and gradual improvement in living conditions. So, mostly, do we.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Yep, on HPI it's £2 million, and 1% is £20k. There will be a huge behavioural response to that - small flats will become much more popular (prices will surge), and larger houses will only be sought out by people raising families (prices will drop). Not a bad outcome IMO, though the amount raised will be much lower as a result.
As such, and as others have said above, I'd much rather it was a blanket 1% and replaced Stamp Duty, Council Tax (at least), but even in isolation it's probably a good policy.
It’s a good idea in theory, but it would have to do more than replace council tax. The reason being, those councils with greatest demands on the purses tend to be in the poorest areas with the lowest house prices (e.g. Stoke, Bradford) and would massively lose out as a result. Meanwhile Surrey Heath or Abingdon would be minted.
It would have to therefore mean an end to local rate raising and everything go on a central government block grant.
Not making any judgement as to whether that’s a bad or good thing, just raising the point.
I think it would be possible to come up with a complicated system - based on relative house prices - for richer areas to transfer money to poorer areas, but for both areas to be able to vary their local tax and spending too, so avoiding the money simply disappearing into the Treasury and local councils being reliant on a block grant.
But you'd need a strong minister who knew their own minds to win that battle with the Treasury.
As we are discussing electoral systems, you may be wondering how Catherine Connolly was elected as Ireland President on the first count. The number of valid first-preference votes on the first count was N=1,442,698. The quota was therefore 1+0.5N= 1+(1,442,698/2) = 721,350. Since Connolly's first-preference votes were 914,143, they exceeded the quota and no further count was made as she had been elected on the first round.
I think if her first preference votes had not exceeded the quota, then the second-preference votes of the bottom candidate Jim Gavin would have redistributed to her and Heather Humphreys, a new quota calculated, and we go round again.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
In which case out of town parking is an extremely efficient use of scarce resources.
In town space is limited, but out of town it is not so scarce, so getting people to do their parking and shopping out of town is efficient.
As for a day rate idea, how is that remotely efficient? Parking at the supermarket all day is not at all efficient, being there for up to 2 hours then driving off with your goods leaving the space free for the next person is much more efficient.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That makes much more sense, but won’t raise any serious money.
Politics of envy again.
Also staggeringly hypocritical. Why do lots of houses cost more than £2 million? Because the government, through its own cowardice and incompetence, has failed completely for decades to allow enough new ones to be built. And this idiotic new tax will give the government yet another reason to keep house prices ridiculous.
But they'll probably get away with it, because the ADHD media can't think things through any more.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
This simply isn't true.
There are two main reasons why town centres are dying.
The first is because Councils are allowing the growth of edge of town and out of town retail parks - many of the high street shops in Newark (as an example) have moved to new, larger venues on the edge of the town.
The second is because smaller shops on the high street cannot compete with online shopping because of the huge disparity in taxes.
Parking plays almost no part in the equation - as is shown in examples such as Grantham which has very cheap or free parking but which still suffers the same problems of declining high streets.
Yep. Online is king. The wife buys almost everything that’s not groceries online. It’s constant. Drip, drip drip of parcels from eBay, vinted and Amazon. Our high street in Warminster actually isn’t that bad, but still has the domination of charity shops, nail bars/barbers, and coffee shops. We lost our general hardware store a couple of years back (not because it was struggling but because the building owners wanted them out). It’s a pleasant enough place to spend an hour, but for a real ‘shop’ you’d head to Bath or Salisbury.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
As we are discussing electoral systems, you may be wondering how Catherine Connolly was elected as Ireland President on the first count. The number of valid first-preference votes on the first count was N=1,442,698. The quota was therefore 1+0.5N= 1+(1,442,698/2) = 721,350. Since Connolly's first-preference votes were 914,143, they exceeded the quota and no further count was made as she had been elected on the first round.
I think if her first preference votes had not exceeded the quota, then the second-preference votes of the bottom candidate Jim Gavin would have redistributed to her and Heather Humphreys, a new quota calculated, and we go round again.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going Green!
It's entirely to do with the fact this Government needs to raise more money in tax and there is nothing else that isn't taxed to the hilt.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going Green!
It's entirely to do with the fact this Government needs to raise more money in tax and there is nothing else that isn't taxed to the hilt.
They could of course cut spending instead of raising tax further but Labour MPs won't allow them to, hence they capitulated over the welfare cuts Reeves originally proposed
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
Brown loved a tax cut. He cut the basic rate of income tax several times as Chancellor. Everyone loves cutting taxes.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I do my week's shopping on my bike, FYI. So do lots of people in areas with good cycle infrastructure. I pick up stuff like milk and eggs by walking round to the corner shop.
I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are not shopping for a family of 4.
Nor are most people. Average household size in the UK is 2.4. I'm just going to get a cargo bike when that time comes, or else pop into Morrisons on the way back from work twice a week rather than once.
You claimed to be in favour of 'equality' yet now claim only that 'most people' matter.
Families of 4 are people too and need equality too.
I do the weekly shop for my family of 4 every Sunday at the out of town supermarket. I get a list of food that my wife and 2 kids want for the week ahead (eldest sometimes comes with me) and pick it all up in one go, that takes about an hour and a half, and only 1 journey for all 4 of us for an entire week. Taking no space at all in town.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
Brown loved a tax cut. He cut the basic rate of income tax several times as Chancellor. Everyone loves cutting taxes.
By the time Brown left office as PM in 2010 there was an additional top rate of income tax of 50%, in 1997 the Tories had a top rate of income tax of 40%.
Brown also abolished the Married Couple's Tax Allowance in 2000
Gallego on what the next Democratic president should do about Trump's ballroom: "To really mess with him, just name it the Barack Obama Ballroom, and I think that will take care of half the problem."
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
Brown loved a tax cut. He cut the basic rate of income tax several times as Chancellor. Everyone loves cutting taxes.
By the time Brown left office as PM in 2010 there was an additional top rate of income tax of 50%, in 1997 the Tories had a top rate of income tax of 40%.
If the public finances had not been wrecked you can be sure that Brown would have gone to the general election with a tax cut.
Gallego on what the next Democratic president should do about Trump's ballroom: "To really mess with him, just name it the Barack Obama Ballroom, and I think that will take care of half the problem."
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
Brown loved a tax cut. He cut the basic rate of income tax several times as Chancellor. Everyone loves cutting taxes.
By the time Brown left office as PM in 2010 there was an additional top rate of income tax of 50%, in 1997 the Tories had a top rate of income tax of 40%.
If the public finances had not been wrecked you can be sure that Brown would have gone to the general election with a tax cut.
He wouldn't, ever since he became PM in 2007 Brown had increased public spending to more than 40% of gdp and had to fund it. The 2008 crash and its aftermath just pushed public spending closer to 50% of gdp needing even more tax rises to fund it
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going Green!
It's entirely to do with the fact this Government needs to raise more money in tax and there is nothing else that isn't taxed to the hilt.
They could of course cut spending instead of raising tax further but Labour MPs won't allow them to, hence they capitulated over the welfare cuts Reeves originally proposed
Which bit of spending would you cut? NHS? Social care?, defence?, police? Pensions? Welfare? Education?
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going Green!
It's entirely to do with the fact this Government needs to raise more money in tax and there is nothing else that isn't taxed to the hilt.
They could of course cut spending instead of raising tax further but Labour MPs won't allow them to, hence they capitulated over the welfare cuts Reeves originally proposed
Which bit of spending would you cut? NHS? Social care?, defence?, police? Pensions? Welfare? Education?
Welfare for starters but Labour MPs blocked even that, Kemi also wants to reduce the civil service, overseas aid as well as welfare and scrap net zero funding.
Farage wants to halve overseas aid too and match Kemi's spending cut proposals in most areas as well (but scrap the 2 child benefit cap unlike Kemi)
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.)
Aka whenever your party has got our country into a complete mess and has run out of political capital to sort it out, Labour has had to come in and do it for you/us.
The BBC are utterly obsessed with this sex pest migrant who seems to have been set free very much against his will. No doubt they’ll be reporting shortly on pitchfork wielding vigilantes inspired by their hysteria. Anyone on the darker side of the racist colour chart should avoid carrying a shopping bag decorated with avocados.
It's totally ridiculous.
"The Etheopian"
An Etheopian English teacher decides to migrate to the UK. He arrives in a small boat and is put in a detention centre
Bored he sits on a wall outside the centre and makes small talk with a couple of bored local school girls.
He makes a lewd joke
The police are called
Word gets out and a far right mob mob mobilise and threaten the centre
The man is charged with an attemted grope and is jailed for 12 months
The prison authorities mistakenly release him after two
He asks if he can serve the rest of his sentence as he has no place to go
The prison authorities say no.
They drop him protesting at a local railway station with no money.
All ports and airports are alerted. A dangerous criminal is on the loose
A terrified population lock up their daughters........
What do you think Mr De Milne? Will it fly......
He tried to kiss the 14 year old. Read her testimony.
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
Funny how each paper (and it goes beyond these two) has ‘insiders’ telling them completely different things.
The general trend though is clear, Starmer and Reeves are going to hit the rich and their assets more, private sector professionals and their earnings more and the highest income tax payers more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
It's entirely to do with the government being skint and needing to raise some extra funds for all the things they want to spend money on.
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Labour doesn't, throughout its history Labour has preferred to increase taxes where possible rather than cut spending or very occasionally do both as Healey did but with deep Labour and union opposition, not to the tax rises on the rich but to the spending cuts.)
Aka whenever your party has got our country into a complete mess and has run out of political capital to sort it out, Labour has had to come in and do it for you/us.
The country was in a rather better state in 1997 than 1979 and in terms of unemployment and inflation in 2024 than in 2010
The Government is also considering raising the top rate of income tax, with the additional rate possibly rising from 45p in the £ back to 50p as it was when Brown left office in 2010 or the threshold for the additional rate being reduced to £110k
How do they intend to value houses to determine which are worth more than £2m?
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
The proposal is a tax on the proportion of value above £2m, not the entire value.
That sounds like a now-classical Rachel Reeves de-minimus failure of making almost zero difference, whilst causing as much political self-damage as possible.
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
What possible justification is there to do that?
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
Not really; it's a fairly modest proposal.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
But the reason the town centres are dying, is because the councils are restricting and charging for parking. To put it bluntly they see cars as a revenue source, especially cars from out of town. So the car owners from out of town go elsewhere, or order from Amazon.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I do my week's shopping on my bike, FYI. So do lots of people in areas with good cycle infrastructure. I pick up stuff like milk and eggs by walking round to the corner shop.
I am assuming (forgive me if I am wrong) that you are not shopping for a family of 4.
Nor are most people. Average household size in the UK is 2.4. I'm just going to get a cargo bike when that time comes, or else pop into Morrisons on the way back from work twice a week rather than once.
You claimed to be in favour of 'equality' yet now claim only that 'most people' matter.
Families of 4 are people too and need equality too.
I do the weekly shop for my family of 4 every Sunday at the out of town supermarket. I get a list of food that my wife and 2 kids want for the week ahead (eldest sometimes comes with me) and pick it all up in one go, that takes about an hour and a half, and only 1 journey for all 4 of us for an entire week. Taking no space at all in town.
That's extremely efficient.
What absolute nutjob suggested fining people going to Aldi to get food.
Gallego on what the next Democratic president should do about Trump's ballroom: "To really mess with him, just name it the Barack Obama Ballroom, and I think that will take care of half the problem."
Comments
(A friend of my wife's has talked about one oul fella she's met in her Gaeltacht area who can't speak English, but I imagine he's one of the last Irish-speaking monoglots.)
In some of the sub-samples (klaxon) the Greens are now actually in the lead among under 50s. Extraordinary.
..The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny...
Edit: not suggesting it's a valid excuse.
To implement a percentage charge while keeping Stamp Duty and Council Tax too is just mad.
I suspect the Greens, like Reform, when they have politics subject to scrutiny will start to fall back. It remains to be seen the impact Your Party has on the Greens too. Both fighting for the same space and also will the Greens lose votes in the shires from people who,don’t got for their gender/palestine/wealth tax now agenda.
I advocate for them. There is a big difference.
I don't hold my breath expecting to get competent governance.
Number 32 (from Cornwall County Council):
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/another-reform-uk-councillor-cornwall-10598279
That's from 28 down to 26 in Cornwall, plus one more on sick leave who has never attended the local Town Council in her district when invited, but lives 40 miles away. And a loss of both Council Leader and Deputy Leader.
I it reaches number 38 by the end of November, I can make an advent calendar running through to Orthodox Christmas in January.
So for example, in 2022, the Irish Census told us:
Total population: 4,975,713
Spoke neither English NOR Irish "at home": 751,507 or 15.10% (and a breakdown by language was provided)
Spoke Irish "outside the Education System" = 71,968 or 1.45% (I presume this would be the Gaeltacht population)
I guess we could "infer" the English spoken "at home" population is (Total minus Neither minus Irish outside the education system) = 4,152,238 or 83.45%, but the Census didn't say that explicitly!
My Dad bought a substantial house in London with his second wife in 1997 for £325k. The house next door sold for £1.88m in 2022, so my Dad's house could be worth £2m (but it probably isn't because it's not in as good internal condition, though that might not matter, depending on the method of valuation).
I reckon a £20k pa tax would actually cause him to seriously consider downsizing.
Sub sections of this story are the complexities of the Not Reform party as Labour, which should be leading the party, has collapsed, and the Tories are at present part of the Reform faction as the rest (eg me) have left.
PC, outside Wales, is of no interest in itself for now, except as part of the Not Reform party. It would only be of interest as PC if it wins a lot of seats in a GE, and also Wales shows real signs of wanting independence and knowing how to attain it.
Outside Wales almost nobody is aware that Wales has some sort of parliament. Wales, its parliament and PC isn't box office for now.
The focus of interest follows as night follows day.
Someone who downsizes is doing the right thing for society but is currently punished, heavily, by taxation for doing so as a large sum will need to be paid out in stamp duty on their new property.
Instead it would be better if anyone who downsizes got a tax cut and faced no extra taxation. It would incentivise people to do the right thing.
Keeping stamp duty in place while adding this would mean people are damned either way and is the worst of all worlds.
I really hope @metpoliceuk release a map of his route bimbling around London so we can inaugurate the Hadush Kebatu Walking Tour and Pub Crawl.
https://x.com/so3_clausewitz/status/1982385991467106353?s=61
Just ignore that your father has lived there for three decades, in a house he owns, and now he’s told by the government that he’s too poor to keep living there.
See Polanski et al.
As such, and as others have said above, I'd much rather it was a blanket 1% and replaced Stamp Duty, Council Tax (at least), but even in isolation it's probably a good policy.
That doesn't sound like "his whole life".
However everyone important in the media either lives in a +£2m house, or intends to in due course, so assume they will take rather more interest in this than they do in the amount of benefit jobless, non disabled, non ill, no children, single people receive off the state.
Just as everyone in the media intends one day to be a pensioner with an ultra low tax regime, so the unfairnesses of this are not important.
But still. £20k pa is a lot of money if they can avoid it by moving to a smaller house that doesn't have four empty guest bedrooms. Although it would take several years to recoup the money lost on stamp duty and other moving costs.
Not going to make a smidgen of a difference to my Dad then.
London isn’t paying their care workers 10x what Middlesbrough does.
EPA Commissioner Lee Zeldin announces his agency is launching a major investigation into the right-wing conspiracies about chemtrails and weather manipulation to get to the bottom of it.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1981395757136826520
It would have to therefore mean an end to local rate raising and everything go on a central government block grant.
Not making any judgement as to whether that’s a bad or good thing, just raising the point.
The EPA are going to get to the bottom of who made up these conspiracies, right?
The Treasury Civil Servant said: "Bend Over, Bend Over", so RR Bent Over and ...
It would be far easier to roll it into a flat % of Value Council Tax, pump a little bit less extra money in to Councils from central funds, and make a move to restoring Stamp Duty to a lower level (say a reduction by 25-50%).
If a bit more is required, then put a 50p a day levy on supermarket and out of town centre car parking spaces, to incentivise their efficient use, increasing to £1 next year. That's perhaps £1-3 billion of low-hanging fruit, and would tip the balance towards town centres. There's a defensible case to hypothecate such finds to active travel and accessible public transport, as that would over time reduce the need for such spaces.
Politics of envy again.
So Westminster having determined the money should be spent should pick up the tab.
Care rights should either be determined locally, which its not, or funded through central taxation and billed to the DHSC.
Similiary SEND rights should either be determined locally, or centrally and billed to the DoE.
Your hatred of private transport seeths through yet again.
It is up to supermarkets and out of town shopping centres to determine how their land is efficiently used, people paying to be there all day rather than having a lot of turnover is probably NOT efficient.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/26/companies-that-donated-to-labour-awarded-138m-in-contracts-study-finds
At least the Americans get a new ballroom.
I love private transport, but I prefer to prioritise scarce resources for efficient users, and to give some weight to equality.
No, a new cycle lane won’t make me take the bike to do my week’s shopping.
Secure cycle parking might encourage people to use the cinema though.
I think if her first preference votes had not exceeded the quota, then the second-preference votes of the bottom candidate Jim Gavin would have redistributed to her and Heather Humphreys, a new quota calculated, and we go round again.
https://www.presidentialelection.ie/
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/irelands-voting-system/#votecount
And then people wonder at the collapse on town shopping.
There are two main reasons why town centres are dying.
The first is because Councils are allowing the growth of edge of town and out of town retail parks - many of the high street shops in Newark (as an example) have moved to new, larger venues on the edge of the town.
The second is because smaller shops on the high street cannot compete with online shopping because of the huge disparity in taxes.
Parking plays almost no part in the equation - as is shown in examples such as Grantham which has very cheap or free parking but which still suffers the same problems of declining high streets.
There are loads of boring competence things to be done to make the country a better place without keeping on focussing on 'change'.
Part of the political sleight of hand about 'change' is that it fixes attention on jam tomorrow as the big achievement when it isn't. While at the same time boring stuff that needs doing (answering the phone, being contactable, Dilnot report on social care) is no part of the 'change' agenda. Radical transformation happens occasionally. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago is a good example, but for 150 million years dinosaurs looked to incremental and gradual improvement in living conditions. So, mostly, do we.
But you'd need a strong minister who knew their own minds to win that battle with the Treasury.
In town space is limited, but out of town it is not so scarce, so getting people to do their parking and shopping out of town is efficient.
As for a day rate idea, how is that remotely efficient? Parking at the supermarket all day is not at all efficient, being there for up to 2 hours then driving off with your goods leaving the space free for the next person is much more efficient.
But they'll probably get away with it, because the ADHD media can't think things through any more.
This is of course entirely to do with economics and nothing whatsoever to do with Starmer's candidate losing the Labour leadership yesterday and Plaid winning the Caerphilly by election and he needing to throw some red meat to the Labour membership to stop them shifting further to Burnham and to keep Labour's core vote from going further to the Greens and Plaid!
Every political party prefers to cut taxes, and you can be as political with the taxes you choose to cut as with the taxes you choose to raise.
Even Blair only froze tax roughly at the levels the Tories left under Major and Clarke, before Brown started increasing tax again when he became PM (and of course as Chancellor Brown also hammered private pension funds)
Families of 4 are people too and need equality too.
I do the weekly shop for my family of 4 every Sunday at the out of town supermarket. I get a list of food that my wife and 2 kids want for the week ahead (eldest sometimes comes with me) and pick it all up in one go, that takes about an hour and a half, and only 1 journey for all 4 of us for an entire week. Taking no space at all in town.
That's extremely efficient.
Brown also abolished the Married Couple's Tax Allowance in 2000
Gallego on what the next Democratic president should do about Trump's ballroom: "To really mess with him, just name it the Barack Obama Ballroom, and I think that will take care of half the problem."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m444lbq3ma2t
Farage wants to halve overseas aid too and match Kemi's spending cut proposals in most areas as well (but scrap the 2 child benefit cap unlike Kemi)