Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
I don't think Mahmood has done a good job as Home Secretary. Her immigration policy is a mess, leaving aside whether you agree with its aims. Relatedly but separately she is despised by anyone who is slightly liberal, which is almost everyone in the Labour Party along with most people who might vote for it.
A Labour Home Sec despised by the membership is clearly doing a good job.
The membership live in cloud cuckoo land.
Good morning
Interesting Trevor Phillips commented last night that Labour talk much about country first party second, when the evidence is much the opposite from attacking Mahmood immigration policies to the abolition of the 2 child cap where the country are in the opposite position
He also said the dog that didn't bark in Makerfield was Gaza
Isn't the allegation/ accusation that Starmer is guilty of genocide, specifically the responsibility of Starmer, rather than the party?
Starmer therefore finds himself in the dock at the Hague rather than the Party. One could argue Burnham wasn't even in the Commons so does not have the blood of 80,000 dead Gazans on his hands.
Aren't we continually told that the public sector is underfunded and unable to complete all the work which needs doing.
Whether that is local government, repairing the roads, NHS, HMRC, plods and courts and almost anything else that can be mentioned.
Surely then if five days work can be completed in four days then the consequence should be extra work is done on the fifth day.
Or is it the case that this 'do five days work in only four days so lets reduce the hours but not the pay' only applies to some office based middle and senior managers.
4 day weeks are the compromise that allows councils in some areas to actually recruit.
Mrs Eek works a 4 day week force her to work 5 days and she would retire and there wouldn’t be anyone to replace her (there is a continual job advert no one is willing to do it for the pay offered).
does not negate that giving the lazy sods 5 days pay for 4 days is anything other than mental. Services are shit as it is without making them worse so public workers can laze about. Should be a poker up the posterior and make them work for 5 days instead of the couple they do now.
When the private sector does this, they have clear productivity targets related to four-day working, and regularly run an hour-longer day that makes up half of the hours.
When we see it in the public sector, it’s presented as an extra day off or a 20% pay rise per hour, with no mention of productivity. After the pandemic, it was also when many government services were suffering from incredibly poor service levels.
I must be missing something as the PB brains trust claimed there was no scrutiny and the press ignored it
Not all. I pointed out recently that I couldn't locate an media outfit that had not covered it. Including the Daily Mail. (When it comes to scrutiny of right wing stuff, does no-one think the Mirror, the Guardian, the FT and James O'Brien count as media/press?)
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
Yes but until we have viable and fully scalable alternatives to all of the products made from oil and gas, it’s not just fuel, then we need to exploit it for that as well.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
When they looked at property tax replacing Council Tax in Scotland the proposal that got closest to cross partly support was PVT with upper and lower thresholds.
You exempt properties below a certain value and then charge a percentage above that, but also have an upper limit.
You also probably need a minimum service charge, for those eligible to pay, so that you don't have a large number of properties just above the threshold being sent bills for less than the cost of billing them.
Revaluation on sale and when building works like renovations or extentions are completed.
People can challenge the valuation but it is validated on sale, so that if it turns out the property the owner argued was worth less isn't the Council can get back the lost revenue. You cold teh otehr way round also claim a rebate.
The biggest stumbling block is what happens when house prices fall and you need to up the rate.espeically if lots of peopel suddenly want rebates.
There isteh Asset Rich/Cash Poor like some pensioners who could get discounts,if these are decided by Councils and self funded, the more residents you want to exempt, the more others need to pay. Tough for those Councils with high levels of dpprivation.
You also don't escape the problem where Councils with low value housing stock have a high tax and low threshold at teh bottom and high at the top, and those with high value the opposites.
You need external Government support in the form of a grant or the people in poorer areas end up paying more for a small house than those in a rich area for a larger one. I t's why rich Tories quite like the idea of raising all their own money and poorer traditional Labour ones don't.
Has Nigel Farage called for protests on the streets of Northern Ireland after the conviction of Sir Geoffrey Donaldson yet?
Or is Donaldson not the right colour to make such a demand?
No, obviously not, because - and I don't know why some people persist in misunderstanding this - protestors who protest against immigrants who commit terrible crimes are not protesting about those terrible crimes; they are protesting about the authorities' failure to keep foreign criminals out of the country.
I must be missing something as the PB brains trust claimed there was no scrutiny and the press ignored it
Not all. I pointed out recently that I couldn't locate an media outfit that had not covered it. Including the Daily Mail. (When it comes to scrutiny of right wing stuff, does no-one think the Mirror, the Guardian, the FT and James O'Brien count as media/press?)
I have been flying that flag and you can't tell me the media have chased Farage down over the £5m with the same enthusiasm they did for either Starmer's spectacles or Rayner's mortgage.
Nick Ferrari brought it up today. A Burnham bonus?
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
Yes but until we have viable and fully scalable alternatives to all of the products made from oil and gas, it’s not just fuel, then we need to exploit it for that as well.
It's as simple as this in my eyes using a football analogy
Renewable is investing in youth with a long term future and massive up sell value
Fossil is investing in a veteran with very limited lifespan and massive depreciation value.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
Yes but until we have viable and fully scalable alternatives to all of the products made from oil and gas, it’s not just fuel, then we need to exploit it for that as well.
It's as simple as this in my eyes using a football analogy
Renewable is investing in youth with a long term future and massive up sell value
Fossil is investing in a veteran with very limited lifespan and massive depreciation value.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
It would do if it were used to abolish council tax and above all stamp duty. Those taxes heavily discriminate against the best parts of the country. If you assume that people stay in houses for ten years on average, a 1% annual levy is the same as a 10% stamp duty bill, which many of the wealthiest often pay.
But of course that's not what Labour will have in mind do - they'll just say they'll abolish other taxes with the cash from the new levy, then hose it at public sector workers and other scroungers instead.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
My view on the North Sea thing is that oil companies should make their own decisions not to invest meaningfully in new oil fields. The government should not make that decision for them.
Has Nigel Farage called for protests on the streets of Northern Ireland after the conviction of Sir Geoffrey Donaldson yet?
Or is Donaldson not the right colour to make such a demand?
No, obviously not, because - and I don't know why some people persist in misunderstanding this - protestors who protest against immigrants who commit terrible crimes are not protesting about those terrible crimes; they are protesting about the authorities' failure to keep foreign criminals out of the country.
That is an absurd argument for dragging innocent olive skinned people out of their homes in Belfast because of an attempted murder by someone who had olive skin.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
If you want to install AC that requires a lot of energy, so you either have to install far more generation or you become more efficient. Plus being energy efficient is cheaper long-term. Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
I don't see why you would think the 'International Energy Agency' would be some sort of beacon of good sense compared to our own institutions. It's precisely these sorts of bodies where the most batshit ideas are germinated.
The coronation idea is against Milliband. When it was an election, Milliband's support amongst the membership was valuable. Now it's just the MPs and then the voters. That devalues Milliband's currency and makes him what he is, a dead weight.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Has Nigel Farage called for protests on the streets of Northern Ireland after the conviction of Sir Geoffrey Donaldson yet?
Or is Donaldson not the right colour to make such a demand?
No, obviously not, because - and I don't know why some people persist in misunderstanding this - protestors who protest against immigrants who commit terrible crimes are not protesting about those terrible crimes; they are protesting about the authorities' failure to keep foreign criminals out of the country.
That is an absurd argument for dragging innocent olive skinned people out of their homes in Belfast because of an attempted murder by someone who had olive skin.
Which has nothing to do with Farage and everything to do with sectarianism as, our man on the spot, Theakes, spoke about at the time
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
AIUI - and I am sure @Richard_Tyndall will correct me if I'm wrong - North Sea oil is not used as fuel, although the gas is.
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
Yes but until we have viable and fully scalable alternatives to all of the products made from oil and gas, it’s not just fuel, then we need to exploit it for that as well.
It's as simple as this in my eyes using a football analogy
Renewable is investing in youth with a long term future and massive up sell value
Fossil is investing in a veteran with very limited lifespan and massive depreciation value.
Yes, but the fossil has scored 5 goals in 2 games.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Absurd. She is such a disaster that (a) Brixian59 rants on about her endlessly (b) her leader ratings are the best of any current leader (c) her party is on the same polling as labour, the party in power.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
CCS is a vanity project. The rest we will see. As I said where’s the business case ?
Our energy costs are high for many reasons not just us buying oil and gas from Russia, presuming we do and if we do we’re mugs as it’s sanctioned and we should get it cheap
Aren't we continually told that the public sector is underfunded and unable to complete all the work which needs doing.
Whether that is local government, repairing the roads, NHS, HMRC, plods and courts and almost anything else that can be mentioned.
Surely then if five days work can be completed in four days then the consequence should be extra work is done on the fifth day.
Or is it the case that this 'do five days work in only four days so lets reduce the hours but not the pay' only applies to some office based middle and senior managers.
4 day weeks are the compromise that allows councils in some areas to actually recruit.
Mrs Eek works a 4 day week force her to work 5 days and she would retire and there wouldn’t be anyone to replace her (there is a continual job advert no one is willing to do it for the pay offered).
does not negate that giving the lazy sods 5 days pay for 4 days is anything other than mental. Services are shit as it is without making them worse so public workers can laze about. Should be a poker up the posterior and make them work for 5 days instead of the couple they do now.
Work four days get paid for four days is fine. Work five days hours in four is fine. Get a massive pay increase for doing five days work in four (when really that’s a symptom over over employing people) at our expense isn’t,
Public sectors jobs have also increased considerably in number since Covid
AI needs to look at lots of admin and middle management roles
Not sure you understand this Civil Service/Local Authority thing. Public sector is the arm of HMG which has the responsibility to deliver the rights and responsibilities that Parliament has enacted. To cut bureaucracy and related costs you need to do two things
* Simpler legislation with less exemptions and * Less 'sweeties' for everyone.
The issue is not the public sector but the idiots we elect who haven't any other purpose that to find exemptions and pass out cash.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
We extended our house - a typical 3 bed semi with one bathroom to a much bigger place with four bedrooms, an extra upstairs lounge and now three bathroom/toilets. When does that get re-assessed for council tax? Or for this proposal? We ain't moving.
Aren't we continually told that the public sector is underfunded and unable to complete all the work which needs doing.
Whether that is local government, repairing the roads, NHS, HMRC, plods and courts and almost anything else that can be mentioned.
Surely then if five days work can be completed in four days then the consequence should be extra work is done on the fifth day.
Or is it the case that this 'do five days work in only four days so lets reduce the hours but not the pay' only applies to some office based middle and senior managers.
4 day weeks are the compromise that allows councils in some areas to actually recruit.
Mrs Eek works a 4 day week force her to work 5 days and she would retire and there wouldn’t be anyone to replace her (there is a continual job advert no one is willing to do it for the pay offered).
does not negate that giving the lazy sods 5 days pay for 4 days is anything other than mental. Services are shit as it is without making them worse so public workers can laze about. Should be a poker up the posterior and make them work for 5 days instead of the couple they do now.
Work four days get paid for four days is fine. Work five days hours in four is fine. Get a massive pay increase for doing five days work in four (when really that’s a symptom over over employing people) at our expense isn’t,
Public sectors jobs have also increased considerably in number since Covid
AI needs to look at lots of admin and middle management roles
Not sure you understand this Civil Service/Local Authority thing. Public sector is the arm of HMG which has the responsibility to deliver the rights and responsibilities that Parliament has enacted. To cut bureaucracy and related costs you need to do two things
* Simpler legislation with less exemptions and * Less 'sweeties' for everyone.
The issue is not the public sector but the idiots we elect who haven't any other purpose that to find exemptions and pass out cash.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
We extended our house - a typical 3 bed semi with one bathroom to a much bigger place with four bedrooms, an extra upstairs lounge and now three bathroom/toilets. When does that get re-assessed for council tax? Or for this proposal? We ain't moving.
At the moment it is when you move or when council tax is revalued at which point they will pay attention as they will look at properties with an improvement flag against them
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
Also the VOA doesn’t exist anymore it’s now part of HMRC.
Which means I’m hearing about all sorts of fun and consequences of a badly thought out merger
And as I said earlier there is no way you could do a council tax reband quickly - there are a lot of other issues at the moment (the business rates revaluation has created a lot of work).
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
It would do if it were used to abolish council tax and above all stamp duty. Those taxes heavily discriminate against the best parts of the country. If you assume that people stay in houses for ten years on average, a 1% annual levy is the same as a 10% stamp duty bill, which many of the wealthiest often pay.
But of course that's not what Labour will have in mind do - they'll just say they'll abolish other taxes with the cash from the new levy, then hose it at public sector workers and other scroungers instead.
You and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, so I'm not going to agree with you on your cynicism about Labour spending.
But, if you do genuinely believe that, then it's a good reason for the Tories to have made this tax change in government, and used the proceeds to cut tax. In a similar way, it would have been sensible for Tories to introduce other, more moderate versions of other tax-raising ideas, and use the proceeds to cut taxes that do more damage to the economy.
Ideas like this property tax have been around for a while now. There was always a good chance that Labour would introduce them if the Tories didn't. If the Tories had done it then they would have been able to decide how to use the money raised.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
He was also at the Treasury when GB4GB was CotE so is well placed to save the World
If it's not Miliband it'll be some spineless idiot who caves on decarbonisation and renewables, I know that the extreme hear has melted some PBers brains, but even the renowned greens at the International Energy Agency have determined that decarbonisation, electrification and energy efficiency is the correct path.
If we decarbonise the grid, why energy efficiency?
This is the thinking, for example, that we must not install A/C. Despite solar being a perfect fit for the demand.
If you want to install AC that requires a lot of energy, so you either have to install far more generation or you become more efficient. Plus being energy efficient is cheaper long-term. Or are you still driving a Jenson that does 8mpg?
I don't see why you would think the 'International Energy Agency' would be some sort of beacon of good sense compared to our own institutions. It's precisely these sorts of bodies where the most batshit ideas are germinated.
The coronation idea is against Milliband. When it was an election, Milliband's support amongst the membership was valuable. Now it's just the MPs and then the voters. That devalues Milliband's currency and makes him what he is, a dead weight.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
We extended our house - a typical 3 bed semi with one bathroom to a much bigger place with four bedrooms, an extra upstairs lounge and now three bathroom/toilets. When does that get re-assessed for council tax? Or for this proposal? We ain't moving.
Your Council Tax band won't increase until you sell the house. Then it will.
When you complete a major structural change like a large extension, your local council flags this with the VOA. The VOA then applies an Improvement Indicator to your property's public listing. Your Council Tax band will remain exactly the same for as long as you own the house. When you sell, its value will be assessed by the VOA as what it would have been worth on 1st April 1991. Not an April Fools joke, That's the current system. A good reason to change it. And Burnham's proposal might be a good way.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
Pedantically speaking, Mrs May won the 2017 general election.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
No one. You use last sale price + HPI change for your local area.
(The 1% was my idea for replacing loads of taxes like IHT, cutting NICs etc. 0.5% covers council tax only, probably needs to be more like 0.6% to cover a drop in prices)
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Such an irrelevance that you harp on about her, endlessly.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
Also the VOA doesn’t exist anymore it’s now part of HMRC.
Which means I’m hearing about all sorts of fun and consequences of a badly thought out merger
And as I said earlier there is no way you could do a council tax reband quickly - there are a lot of other issues at the moment (the business rates revaluation has created a lot of work).
Yes, Point taken, But it has the same function.
It could borrow the Zoopla algorithm which has a valuation of almost all residential properties and then regularise it on a sale.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
We extended our house - a typical 3 bed semi with one bathroom to a much bigger place with four bedrooms, an extra upstairs lounge and now three bathroom/toilets. When does that get re-assessed for council tax? Or for this proposal? We ain't moving.
You could simply not revalue until the house is sold (after your death, perhaps), except by indexation with house prices in the area. This would be a mild tax incentive to encourage people to extend and improve their own homes, which is probably a good thing.
If you didn't want to do that then you could instead have an index of house value per square metre, and so adjust the valuation of your house by the increase in its floorspace. That would be easy to implement, but I think I'd rather have the mild tax incentive for extensions.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
No one. You use last sale price + HPI change for your local area.
(The 1% was my idea for replacing loads of taxes like IHT, cutting NICs etc. 0.5% covers council tax only, probably needs to be more like 0.6% to cover a drop in prices)
An interesting proposal I have seen is 5% as a LVT rate which covers cutting Income Tax down to 10%
Not run the Maths on that, but it is a very interesting policy that has a lot to commend it.
Would be satisfied though with just abolishing Council Tax and Stamp Duty.
The tax debate always seems to start in the wrong place.
Instead of “what tax can we invent/scrap/tweak?”, start with “what does the state actually want to provide, at what standard, and what does that cost?”
Has Nigel Farage called for protests on the streets of Northern Ireland after the conviction of Sir Geoffrey Donaldson yet?
Or is Donaldson not the right colour to make such a demand?
No, obviously not, because - and I don't know why some people persist in misunderstanding this - protestors who protest against immigrants who commit terrible crimes are not protesting about those terrible crimes; they are protesting about the authorities' failure to keep foreign criminals out of the country.
That is an absurd argument for dragging innocent olive skinned people out of their homes in Belfast because of an attempted murder by someone who had olive skin.
It’s about power in NI
“I got the furriners burnt out of their homes and rehoused elsewhere. So I’m The Big Man. Now pay your street taxes”.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
House worth up to £1m: 1% capped at £3,500 (slightly above the average house price)
House worth > £1m: £3,500 + 1% on everything over £1m
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
CCS is a vanity project. The rest we will see. As I said where’s the business case ?
Our energy costs are high for many reasons not just us buying oil and gas from Russia, presuming we do and if we do we’re mugs as it’s sanctioned and we should get it cheap
CCS has a purpose for processes that can't be easily decarbonised, cement etc but it shouldn't be used for new CCGT or other fossil fuel burning processes. My recent experience of CCS is companies that have a CCS obligation, because they've promised it for a FF project, and want a proposal for CCS that looks feasible that they can show when asked.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
When they looked at property tax replacing Council Tax in Scotland the proposal that got closest to cross partly support was PVT with upper and lower thresholds.
You exempt properties below a certain value and then charge a percentage above that, but also have an upper limit.
You also probably need a minimum service charge, for those eligible to pay, so that you don't have a large number of properties just above the threshold being sent bills for less than the cost of billing them.
Revaluation on sale and when building works like renovations or extentions are completed.
People can challenge the valuation but it is validated on sale, so that if it turns out the property the owner argued was worth less isn't the Council can get back the lost revenue. You cold teh otehr way round also claim a rebate.
The biggest stumbling block is what happens when house prices fall and you need to up the rate.espeically if lots of peopel suddenly want rebates.
There isteh Asset Rich/Cash Poor like some pensioners who could get discounts,if these are decided by Councils and self funded, the more residents you want to exempt, the more others need to pay. Tough for those Councils with high levels of dpprivation.
You also don't escape the problem where Councils with low value housing stock have a high tax and low threshold at teh bottom and high at the top, and those with high value the opposites.
You need external Government support in the form of a grant or the people in poorer areas end up paying more for a small house than those in a rich area for a larger one. I t's why rich Tories quite like the idea of raising all their own money and poorer traditional Labour ones don't.
Peter.
Let people send in their own property valuation, if they wish, on condition that when the property is next sold the maximum allowable asking price is determined by or from the householder’s own valuation.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Absurd. She is such a disaster that (a) Brixian59 rants on about her endlessly (b) her leader ratings are the best of any current leader (c) her party is on the same polling as labour, the party in power.
It's the mid terms she should be ten points ahead.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
Do you need a lie down, babe?
Be kind.
The full sized cardboard cut out of Kemi, in the corner of his room, will smile back. Soon.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
There are alternative views. Renewables are intermittent in an era where demand is almost always on so balancing supply is important. The only problem is we are paying for 2-3 times the capacity we actually need simply to ensure availability. It will get worse when we take out gas.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Absurd. She is such a disaster that (a) Brixian59 rants on about her endlessly (b) her leader ratings are the best of any current leader (c) her party is on the same polling as labour, the party in power.
It's the mid terms she should be ten points ahead.
She was roughly 40pts ahead of SKS (net favourability -4 vs -44) granted that's changed under Burnham, but he's not leader yet and who knows how long his honeymoon will be
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
No one. You use last sale price + HPI change for your local area.
(The 1% was my idea for replacing loads of taxes like IHT, cutting NICs etc. 0.5% covers council tax only, probably needs to be more like 0.6% to cover a drop in prices)
An interesting proposal I have seen is 5% as a LVT rate which covers cutting Income Tax down to 10%
Not run the Maths on that, but it is a very interesting policy that has a lot to commend it.
Would be satisfied though with just abolishing Council Tax and Stamp Duty.
I think you'd want to build up to that half a percent at a time to give time for the housing market to adjust gracefully, and so you could see how much house prices reacted to the taxation burden.
I'd probably be a bit nervous about pushing it that far - you don't want to narrow the tax base by cutting income tax too much. It's one of the problems Ireland has (a narrow tax base) and one of the reasons the country did so badly after the Great Financial Crash. And the country will come a cropper again when the Corporation Tax golden goose stops laying so many eggs, because it still has too narrow a tax base.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
There have been two in Northern Ireland.
But Thatcher is the only woman to win a majority in a national (or Home Nations) general election.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Absurd. She is such a disaster that (a) Brixian59 rants on about her endlessly (b) her leader ratings are the best of any current leader (c) her party is on the same polling as labour, the party in power.
It's the mid terms she should be ten points ahead.
She was roughly 40pts ahead of SKS (net favourability -4 vs -44) granted that's changed under Burnham, but he's not leader yet and who knows how long his honeymoon will be
I now have an image of Badenoch and Burnham having a honeymoon together.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
No one. You use last sale price + HPI change for your local area.
(The 1% was my idea for replacing loads of taxes like IHT, cutting NICs etc. 0.5% covers council tax only, probably needs to be more like 0.6% to cover a drop in prices)
An interesting proposal I have seen is 5% as a LVT rate which covers cutting Income Tax down to 10%
Not run the Maths on that, but it is a very interesting policy that has a lot to commend it.
Would be satisfied though with just abolishing Council Tax and Stamp Duty.
I think you'd want to build up to that half a percent at a time to give time for the housing market to adjust gracefully, and so you could see how much house prices reacted to the taxation burden.
I'd probably be a bit nervous about pushing it that far - you don't want to narrow the tax base by cutting income tax too much. It's one of the problems Ireland has (a narrow tax base) and one of the reasons the country did so badly after the Great Financial Crash. And the country will come a cropper again when the Corporation Tax golden goose stops laying so many eggs, because it still has too narrow a tax base.
Indeed. It is quite extreme that, and certainly would take time to transition, but there is something both economically and philosphically to commend taxing that which is not produced (land) more rather than that which is (work).
However just abolishing CT and SD would be a sufficient and smart proposal.
I must be missing something as the PB brains trust claimed there was no scrutiny and the press ignored it
Not all. I pointed out recently that I couldn't locate an media outfit that had not covered it. Including the Daily Mail. (When it comes to scrutiny of right wing stuff, does no-one think the Mirror, the Guardian, the FT and James O'Brien count as media/press?)
Sfaict it is Farage who has blown up the £5m row by shooting his mouth off before taking advice, presumably because he was worried about income tax, giving inconsistent explanations. Dan Neidle's lot have opined there is no tax due as it is a gift not payment. Whether or not he used it to buy a house ignores that cash is fungible; it is like worrying whether it was Monday's or Thursday's wages you spent at Tesco. Whether he was hacked is a security concern but does not affect the money. The open question is whether he should have declared it as an interest even though he was not an MP at the time and the Standards Commissioner is having a think.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
Pedantically speaking, Mrs May won the 2017 general election.
Of course she lost Dave's majority...
A win is a win, even if that win is reliant on Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP.*
*Nearly ten years on and I still can't come to terms with the utter insanity of that arrangement.
Then if that doesn't work out well maybe let Ed Miliband have a go.
It will be Ed Miliband imo. Ed has said he wants to be Chancellor, and has previously bested Burnham in a leadership contest so needs to be bought off kept onside.
That sounds like a very good reason for not choosing him. If Burnham has to "buy off" the Millibands, etc, then he might as well not bother trying to be PM.
I think Ed M should be left where he is. He's doing a good job, generally speaking, and shuffling people about every five minutes was one of the reasons the Conservatives made such a bog of being in government over the past years.
I think he should be chased, he is crap.
100bn invest in renewable energy in 2 years.
The highest growth sector in the economy
Putting right 14 years of neglect
He's doing a great job
In Labour terms investment just means hosing more taxpayers money at vanity schemes with no payback or cost benefit analysis
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
Solar, wind, tidal small nuclear are not vanity policies that deliver sustainable energy for long term
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
There are alternative views. Renewables are intermittent in an era where demand is almost always on so balancing supply is important. The only problem is we are paying for 2-3 times the capacity we actually need simply to ensure availability. It will get worse when we take out gas.
Part of the solution to that is demand management. For some heavy electricity users, there will be a price point at which it makes sense for them to shut down during periods of short supply in return for cheap electricity when supplies are plentiful.
Edit: Obviously we already have this to a certain extent with, for example, tariffs for domestic users that offer low night-time prices and free electricity to encourage electricity use at some periods and incentives to save at other times. There is a lot of scope to expand this.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Above all the Keminaissance should be fun? We need some happiness in our lives.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
Pedantically speaking, Mrs May won the 2017 general election.
Of course she lost Dave's majority...
A win is a win, even if that win is reliant on Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP.*
*Nearly ten years on and I still can't come to terms with the utter insanity of that arrangement.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
Pedantically speaking, Mrs May won the 2017 general election.
Of course she lost Dave's majority...
A win is a win, even if that win is reliant on Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP.*
*Nearly ten years on and I still can't come to terms with the utter insanity of that arrangement.
May needed the DUP for her Brexit policy which was unacceptable to her party something something vassal state so she was replaced by Boris who agreed substantially the same Brexit deal except for selling out Northern Ireland. See, it all makes sense.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
Who is doing the valuation?
The VOA would do the valuation (as now for Council Tax) and would calculate a home's worth using local transaction histories and actual sales data recorded by the Land Registry, similar to the Zoopla valuation method.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
Also the VOA doesn’t exist anymore it’s now part of HMRC.
Which means I’m hearing about all sorts of fun and consequences of a badly thought out merger
And as I said earlier there is no way you could do a council tax reband quickly - there are a lot of other issues at the moment (the business rates revaluation has created a lot of work).
Yes, Point taken, But it has the same function.
It could borrow the Zoopla algorithm which has a valuation of almost all residential properties and then regularise it on a sale.
Coming back on this.
What I think is the Burnham policy is is the so called Proportional Property Tax, which would be at 0.48% of value (I have argued for a slightly higher number, as I think Local Government needs more money, and that would help).
The numbers are that nationally 80%+ would benefit, and in London it is more than half. I, with my house in North Notts worth around £450k, would be roughly neutral - but we have historically had fairly high Council Tax here.
I've been through the PPT proposals in detail several times, and I think it is a robust set.
I have a couple of queries, but nothing really major.
What he would need to do is either do something else now for after the next election, or get it in place in 2027, for 2028. It is really one that Starmer and Reeves should have done, but Starmer is a timid little mouse with no real focus, and Reeves is as far as I tell can up Sir Humphrey's backside, or in his matchbox.
Kemi Badenoch thinks it's a 'disgrace' that Rachel Reeves snubbed the PM's resignation speech to go and take selfies with Andy Burnham
Does she not understand this politics stuff? Sometimes less (on Twitter) is more.
Kemi is having a disastrous Starmer resignation period.
Frankly near hysterical rant in Commons yesterday linking it to defence spending, when the Tories are in denial about reducing it from 2.5%of GDP to 2% of GDP whilst Labour have increased to 2.6% with record investment in arms, pay and living conditions and then saying its to do with Oil and Gas in Aberdeen when vast majority of under 50s prefer switch to renewable.
Now this gaffe.
She's utterly irrelevant, desperate for attention and a danger to herself on Twatter
But she's seen off Starmer.
That's gotta hurt.
It's got absolutely feck all to do with her.
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
Let it go.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
Absurd. She is such a disaster that (a) Brixian59 rants on about her endlessly (b) her leader ratings are the best of any current leader (c) her party is on the same polling as labour, the party in power.
It's the mid terms she should be ten points ahead.
She was roughly 40pts ahead of SKS (net favourability -4 vs -44) granted that's changed under Burnham, but he's not leader yet and who knows how long his honeymoon will be
On the basis of Starmer's record unpopularity the Tories should be thirty points ahead. The RefResCon total should be your benchmark, so basically 50+ plays 20. As it is it is 20 plays 20.
Like I said, your business and not mine. Shill away.
The pale white blokes who complain about there being too many pale white blokes elect another pale white bloke.
FWIW Scottish Labour has had three female leaders and is currently led by an Asian heritage man. They haven't been noticeably more successful than their white male counterparts however.
Labour's first female leader in Wales led them to their first election defeat in the age of universal suffrage.
Mrs May, Jo Swinson…surely Mrs T can’t be the only female election winner? And Sturgeon, of course
Pedantically speaking, Mrs May won the 2017 general election.
Of course she lost Dave's majority...
A win is a win, even if that win is reliant on Jeffrey Donaldson and the DUP.*
*Nearly ten years on and I still can't come to terms with the utter insanity of that arrangement.
I'm highly amused this morning by the great sucking sound as newspapers find they suddenly may not have a 3-4 month succession process to use to try and create chaos in the Government, in order to complain about it.
The misleading framing of possible reforms to Council Tax are interesting. The Standard: "Londoners face £1,000 property tax rise." (Fact check: most Londoners will benefit, especially those who have not seen their house prices spiral so much since 1991). Also Telegraph: "Whoever the next chancellor is, they are coming for your home."
Those type of papers (ie nearly all of them) will be framing Council Tax as a Wealth Tax. Is there any limit to the black hole in the heads of readers of most of our newspapers?
My immediate thought is that if he is in, Burnham needs to do things quickly. A revaluation of Council Tax may possible and implemented in a year or two. I'm not sure about a proprty value tax (unfortunately).
I think that is all completely untrue. Of course it all depends on what level PVT s set at. But yesterday the discussion was on a 1% levy.
Given the median council tax in London is currently £2200 and the median house price is £50000, a 1% PVT would see the median property tax burden more than double.
The suggestion made yesterday that people can simply move to a cheaper property is so ludicrous in the London context that it doesn’t even deserve a response
The other suggestion to make the PVT only 0.5% works better for London but would slash the amount being raised across the rest of the country.
A national one size fits all PVT simply doesn't work.
You have the Maths/policy wrong.
The proposal nationwide routinely talked about is 0.5% (actually slightly less) and that does work nationwide.
1% has been proposed by some as a surcharge rate for second homes etc not as the standard rate.
Yes.
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
One of the practical challenges is that if there are rumours of Stamp Duty going, the housing market will stop dead until it's gone. They'll also be lots of pretty bitter people who have recently moved, and are getting stiffed both ways.
I've a dog in this fight, I'm quite close to completion on a house move where I'm about to be rinsed for almost £15k in stamp. If SDLT gets abolished the week after, I'm going to feel pretty sick about it.
(My wife lost out quite badly like this - they reduced the rates for 1st time buyers about a week after she bought he first house. She's still bitter about it now, we sold said house 4 years ago!)
Comments
Andrew Burnham would be only the second MP since 1918 to become Prime Minister having been elected in a by-election in the same Parliament.
The first, and only example to date, being Alec Douglas-Home.
And, incidentally, both were former MPs, but Home was at least a member of the Lords at the time.
Not exploiting the North Sea when we know Hormuz is a major risk and will continue to be, simply from supply chain risk mitigation, is nuts.
Highest energy costs in G7
He’s just continuing the tories policies
So actually, having fuel from purely domestic sources - wind, solar, tidal - would be a major advantage in weaning us off dependence on the whims of the scum of the IRG.
Starmer therefore finds himself in the dock at the Hague rather than the Party. One could argue Burnham wasn't even in the Commons so does not have the blood of 80,000 dead Gazans on his hands.
When we see it in the public sector, it’s presented as an extra day off or a 20% pay rise per hour, with no mention of productivity. After the pandemic, it was also when many government services were suffering from incredibly poor service levels.
Or is Donaldson not the right colour to make such a demand?
You exempt properties below a certain value and then charge a percentage above that, but also have an upper limit.
You also probably need a minimum service charge, for those eligible to pay, so that you don't have a large number of properties just above the threshold being sent bills for less than the cost of billing them.
Revaluation on sale and when building works like renovations or extentions are completed.
People can challenge the valuation but it is validated on sale, so that if it turns out the property the owner argued was worth less isn't the Council can get back the lost revenue. You cold teh otehr way round also claim a rebate.
The biggest stumbling block is what happens when house prices fall and you need to up the rate.espeically if lots of peopel suddenly want rebates.
There isteh Asset Rich/Cash Poor like some pensioners who could get discounts,if these are decided by Councils and self funded, the more residents you want to exempt, the more others need to pay. Tough for those Councils with high levels of dpprivation.
You also don't escape the problem where Councils with low value housing stock have a high tax and low threshold at teh bottom and high at the top, and those with high value the opposites.
You need external Government support in the form of a grant or the people in poorer areas end up paying more for a small house than those in a rich area for a larger one.
I
t's why rich Tories quite like the idea of raising all their own money and poorer traditional Labour ones don't.
Peter.
Nick Ferrari brought it up today. A Burnham bonus?
Renewable is investing in youth with a long term future and massive up sell value
Fossil is investing in a veteran with very limited lifespan and massive depreciation value.
Oh dear me !!
The "Burnham policy" is a flat 0.48% annual tax on a property's current market value.
A higher rate of 0.96% would apply to second homes, empty properties, and foreign-owned properties.
The policy is designed to be revenue-neutral for the government while completely abolishing two existing UK taxes: Council Tax and Stamp Duty. So it sorts out the 1991 Council Tax valuation anomaly and also facilitates more economic and social mobility by removing Stamp Duty.
I think there is an initial transition cap in the proposal, ensuring no homeowner's bill increases by more than £1,200 per year compared to their previous council tax, and that roughly 75% of households (particularly in the North and Midlands) would save money, while the remaining 25% (concentrated in high-value areas like London and the South East) would see tax increases.
It might fly. It might be popular. It's certainly bold.
But of course that's not what Labour will have in mind do - they'll just say they'll abolish other taxes with the cash from the new levy, then hose it at public sector workers and other scroungers instead.
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
Our current costs are high as we are paying over the odds for Russian oil and gas.
Chronic under investment over decades finally turning around under Miliband
Carbon capture seems a folly to me but the rest long term positive vision
I'd say everything to with Farage and his populism.
Badenoch is an irrelevance
The coronation idea is against Milliband. When it was an election, Milliband's support amongst the membership was valuable. Now it's just the MPs and then the voters. That devalues Milliband's currency and makes him what he is, a dead weight.
She is a disaster but it is none of our business, so let the PB Tories promote their own demise.
It would be reassessed on the actual value of a sale with a rebate or extra charge.
Our energy costs are high for many reasons not just us buying oil and gas from Russia, presuming we do and if we do we’re mugs as it’s sanctioned and we should get it cheap
* Simpler legislation with less exemptions and
* Less 'sweeties' for everyone.
The issue is not the public sector but the idiots we elect who haven't any other purpose that to find exemptions and pass out cash.
Which means I’m hearing about all sorts of fun and consequences of a badly thought out merger
And as I said earlier there is no way you could do a council tax reband quickly - there are a lot of other issues at the moment (the business rates revaluation has created a lot of work).
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5582629/#Comment_5582629
But, if you do genuinely believe that, then it's a good reason for the Tories to have made this tax change in government, and used the proceeds to cut tax. In a similar way, it would have been sensible for Tories to introduce other, more moderate versions of other tax-raising ideas, and use the proceeds to cut taxes that do more damage to the economy.
Ideas like this property tax have been around for a while now. There was always a good chance that Labour would introduce them if the Tories didn't. If the Tories had done it then they would have been able to decide how to use the money raised.
When you complete a major structural change like a large extension, your local council flags this with the VOA. The VOA then applies an Improvement Indicator to your property's public listing. Your Council Tax band will remain exactly the same for as long as you own the house. When you sell, its value will be assessed by the VOA as what it would have been worth on 1st April 1991. Not an April Fools joke, That's the current system. A good reason to change it. And Burnham's proposal might be a good way.
Of course she lost Dave's majority...
(The 1% was my idea for replacing loads of taxes like IHT, cutting NICs etc. 0.5% covers council tax only, probably needs to be more like 0.6% to cover a drop in prices)
I'm reminded of Oscar the Grouch, from Sesame Street.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IPLjPtE5IXY
It could borrow the Zoopla algorithm which has a valuation of almost all residential properties and then regularise it on a sale.
If you didn't want to do that then you could instead have an index of house value per square metre, and so adjust the valuation of your house by the increase in its floorspace. That would be easy to implement, but I think I'd rather have the mild tax incentive for extensions.
Not run the Maths on that, but it is a very interesting policy that has a lot to commend it.
Would be satisfied though with just abolishing Council Tax and Stamp Duty.
Instead of “what tax can we invent/scrap/tweak?”, start with “what does the state actually want to provide, at what standard, and what does that cost?”
Then design the tax base to fund it.
Mad idea, I know.
“I got the furriners burnt out of their homes and rehoused elsewhere. So I’m The Big Man. Now pay your street taxes”.
House worth > £1m: £3,500 + 1% on everything over £1m
My recent experience of CCS is companies that have a CCS obligation, because they've promised it for a FF project, and want a proposal for CCS that looks feasible that they can show when asked.
The full sized cardboard cut out of Kemi, in the corner of his room, will smile back. Soon.
granted that's changed under Burnham, but he's not leader yet and who knows how long his honeymoon will be
I'd probably be a bit nervous about pushing it that far - you don't want to narrow the tax base by cutting income tax too much. It's one of the problems Ireland has (a narrow tax base) and one of the reasons the country did so badly after the Great Financial Crash. And the country will come a cropper again when the Corporation Tax golden goose stops laying so many eggs, because it still has too narrow a tax base.
But Thatcher is the only woman to win a majority in a national (or Home Nations) general election.
It is a mental image I could have done without.
However just abolishing CT and SD would be a sufficient and smart proposal.
It saved time later.
*Nearly ten years on and I still can't come to terms with the utter insanity of that arrangement.
Edit: Obviously we already have this to a certain extent with, for example, tariffs for domestic users that offer low night-time prices and free electricity to encourage electricity use at some periods and incentives to save at other times. There is a lot of scope to expand this.
What I think is the Burnham policy is is the so called Proportional Property Tax, which would be at 0.48% of value (I have argued for a slightly higher number, as I think Local Government needs more money, and that would help).
The numbers are that nationally 80%+ would benefit, and in London it is more than half. I, with my house in North Notts worth around £450k, would be roughly neutral - but we have historically had fairly high Council Tax here.
I've been through the PPT proposals in detail several times, and I think it is a robust set.
I have a couple of queries, but nothing really major.
What he would need to do is either do something else now for after the next election, or get it in place in 2027, for 2028. It is really one that Starmer and Reeves should have done, but Starmer is a timid little mouse with no real focus, and Reeves is as far as I tell can up Sir Humphrey's backside, or in his matchbox.
Like I said, your business and not mine. Shill away.
I've a dog in this fight, I'm quite close to completion on a house move where I'm about to be rinsed for almost £15k in stamp. If SDLT gets abolished the week after, I'm going to feel pretty sick about it.
(My wife lost out quite badly like this - they reduced the rates for 1st time buyers about a week after she bought he first house. She's still bitter about it now, we sold said house 4 years ago!)
https://x.com/gillian_emm/status/2069339236151509490?s=61