Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?
Over-reaction to the loss of Empire? Awe at Germany's post-war economic recovery? Desire to be a big fish in the European pond, rather than a minnow swimming in the wake of the US? Too much Classical education encouraging a fondness for the grandeur that was Rome?
Do you have any hypotheses?
I have long held with the view that the desire on the part of many Tory wets in the second half of the 20th century for the UK to be at the heart of the Europe project was a combination of despair over the loss of Empire and with an arrogance that believed that the EEC/EU would naturally succumb to the superior organisational and governmental abilities of the British.
All these old high Tories regarded ruling Europe as a natural replacement to ruling the Empire. Dangerous, arrogant and, of course, wrong.
Added to which, it is probably simply more fun. Europe is just a couple of hours away, with food, wine and culture even better than an Oxford college or London club. Unlike the Commonwealth which takes a lot of travel, only to be harangued in uncomfortable conditions, especially in the days before air conditioning, and served unfamiliar food.
GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius) 20/11/2014 08:37 @KellyTolhurst@CCHQPress I don't give a fuck whether you are local, and you certainly aren't a girl, or you wouldn't be allowed to stand.
Morning all and this topic reminds me of the Poll Tax, fine when introduced in Scotland but a major problem when England faced it.
So with FPTP. In 1997 the Scottish Tories got almost 500,000 and not a single seat but people shrugged their shoulders and said "tough"! Now the fact UKIP or LibDems could get lots of votes in England and not many seats and FPTP is suddenly broken.
I think its more that the Tories could easily get the largest share of the vote but end up in opposition due to seats, that is when the shouting and screaming will start.
"It's very simple: they are value maximisers like everyone else. However, given they are paying limited tax, and would continue to pay limited tax with higher rates, they gain more value from the smug sense that they are better than their fellow man because they vote for higher taxes.
Correct. Unlike Audreyanne who extrapolates results of elections on how much tax they might have to pay multiplyed by her prejudice you seem to have been out more
Why on Earth did we throw our lot in with France and Italy round that nations we are so much more alike, and that have our economically competitive philosophy?
Over-reaction to the loss of Empire? Awe at Germany's post-war economic recovery? Desire to be a big fish in the European pond, rather than a minnow swimming in the wake of the US? Too much Classical education encouraging a fondness for the grandeur that was Rome?
Do you have any hypotheses?
I have long held with the view that the desire on the part of many Tory wets in the second half of the 20th century for the UK to be at the heart of the Europe project was a combination of despair over the loss of Empire and with an arrogance that believed that the EEC/EU would naturally succumb to the superior organisational and governmental abilities of the British.
All these old high Tories regarded ruling Europe as a natural replacement to ruling the Empire. Dangerous, arrogant and, of course, wrong.
Added to which, it is probably simply more fun. Europe is just a couple of hours away, with food, wine and culture even better than an Oxford college or London club. Unlike the Commonwealth which takes a lot of travel, only to be harangued in uncomfortable conditions, especially in the days before air conditioning, and served unfamiliar food.
Yes, While you are in power you get to endlessly blame anything going wrong on the EU, and shrug apologetically and say you of course agree with the electorate but its out of your hands, and after a few years of faithful service you are rewarded with a nice well paid sinecure in Brussels, with hot and cold running staff, a very generous expense allowance, and a gold plated pension - what's not to like.
It was clear from the start that here was a brutish and low-grade specimen who ought not have been permitted to stand in the Conservative interest...Nothing that Mr Reckless has done since becoming an MP in 2010 has caused me to change my opinion. Indeed Mr Reckless’s call yesterday for migrant workers to be repatriated suggests that he might well have found a home in Nick Griffin’s BNP. The contrast between the bellicosity of his public opinions and his lack of impact in the Commons is striking. His defection to Ukip nearly two months ago reflected well on David Cameron’s Conservative Party, making it a better place.
GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius) 20/11/2014 08:37 @KellyTolhurst@CCHQPress I don't give a fuck whether you are local, and you certainly aren't a girl, or you wouldn't be allowed to stand.
It's an old, and not missed 'friend' of this site innit. He always had issues with women.
Quick response to posts: Indigo: not sure where you get the flat £3K figure for the mansion tax from. As I understand it, the proposal is 1% over £2 million. If your garage is worth £3m that's £10K. If it's worth £10 million that's £80K. That's why it taises the stated sums. And yes, there will be people in £10 million properties who can't easily raise £80K/year. They might have to accumulate the amount and leave a bit less to their heirs, or move to an £8 million property. It's one of those minor things that can happen in an otherwise good life. Do I have trouble defending it? Nope. Would I hesitate if I were a London MP? Also nope. The next Government, whether Labour or Tory, is going to have a lot more difficult challenges than that.
Tim B FPT: yes, there were indeed metrics for what the extra NHS money did - that was the point of the targets such as having no more than 18 weeks from first GP visit with a complaint to operation (unless delayed for medical reasons). When I was elected in 1997 the waiting time was up to 2 years.You could argue the money should have gone on omething else, but despite the occasional disaster the general improvement that it produced is not in serious dispute.
Personal vote: Butler & King used in the polarised 60s to estimate that the absolute highest that a good MP/candidate could raise the voting share in a GE (in a by-elecion, special rules apply) was 5% of the voters. In our disillisioned times when party allgisance is weaker, I think that's up to 10%, i.e. if an average Tory would score 35% in constituency X, a really brilliant Tory could make it 45%, but no more. For a merely good candidate the figure is probably now still 5%. It's become quite important, in other words, though it's not usually decisive.
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
It is estimated that 108,000 homes – the vast majority in London and the South East – will be caught by the tax.
108,000 homes at £3000 each is less than a third of a billion, not exactly the 1.5bn Balls was promising, he would have to charge £15k/year to make that. Another money making wheeze bites the dust.
POEWAS
Multiple the 108,000 by at least 4x the number of people who will worry that they may be caught by it, even if not at the moment true, and you have 500,000 people. I'm not enamoured of the idea that anyone is more important than another. However, a lot of those 500,000 are influential people: movers and shakers. The ones who are left-leaning would have supported Tony Blair's New Labour because they could have a social conscience and help build a better society without themselves getting clobbered too heavily. Now, in one fell swoop Labour have dangled the Sword of Damocles above their heads.
It is the stupidest policy by a major political party since Michael Foot's unilateral nuclear disarmament. It may have huge implications for Labour in London.
Oh don't be ridiculous there are lots stupid policies around, it's a golden time for them. Who can beat the idiocy of David Willetts and the mess of Uni fees or Osborne's pasty tax ?
Are you one of those people who struggles to be nice in the mornings? You did the same yesterday!
No I don't think the Uni fees or pasty tax are comparable. The Mansion Tax has alienated a lot of very influential people not simply in business but also in the print media; actors; directors, writers, musicians. The list could go on, but hopefully you get the point. It's what are disparagingly called the New Labour luvvies who have been hit by this and they're a different kind of core supporter. Left-leaning, highly influential, people.
I think they would lose without it, but Miliband's Mansion Tax may have cost Labour the General Election.
You mean typical trendy leftie. All for tax rises. So long as it is for others to pay.
I guess they take their cue from Ed. He engaged in IHT tax avoidance so why not me?
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
He featured in one of the more bizarre nights of my life, along with Chris de Burgh, several of Duran Duran, the 9th Earl Spencer and a very, very wasted Hoff......
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
Ofsted denied it was marked down for that reason, but its going to be hard work to sell the parents, or come to that, the public on that.
While I bow to no-one in my dislike of political correctness (and dislike for the state's involvement in the provision of certain services), I suspect this was one of about 1,000 reasons. So, were you to be in possession of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97 2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8 3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues ... 107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society ... 944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because * Occasionally, pupils are given work which is too easy or too hard. This prevents them from making more rapid progress. * There are insufficient opportunities for teachers to improve their skills by observing best practice in the school and elsewhere. * Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.” I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
They should have to take them off like they do when they go into banks
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Anyone who can spell it should automatically be in the running for PM :-)
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
My preferred method is for voters to have more than one vote, the exact number being equivalent to their IQ.
Mutiplied by how much tax they paid in the past 5 years.
Before I get on with my day, i'm briefly reflecting on the absurdity of globalisation.
I'm being strongly encouraged to bet on Pakistan Railways in their must-win match against Karachi Electric in the Pakistani football Premier league. That's on a .uk betting site subject to Maltese law, apparently operated by staff from the Philippines.
His suggestion at the end of the second link would go down like as sack of shit! Ridiculously patronising and undercuts the rest of the article IMO
I think, though, that's his point. He's not going to force you to agree with him, but he's not going to back down on expressing his point of view - which clearly differs from your own to a large degree.
Of course lots of people would not be happy with that, but it would be more honest, as he says.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
Ofsted denied it was marked down for that reason, but its going to be hard work to sell the parents, or come to that, the public on that.
While I bow to no-one in my dislike of political correctness (and dislike for the state's involvement in the provision of certain services), I suspect this was one of about 1,000 reasons. So, were you to be in possession of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97 2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8 3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues ... 107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society ... 944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because * Occasionally, pupils are given work which is too easy or too hard. This prevents them from making more rapid progress. * There are insufficient opportunities for teachers to improve their skills by observing best practice in the school and elsewhere. * Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.” I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
On that basis most London grammars are not outstanding schools - they're disproportionately full of Asians.
Has Ofsted ever marked a school down for being too black or Asian?
Before I get on with my day, i'm briefly reflecting on the absurdity of globalisation.
I'm being strongly encouraged to bet on Pakistan Railways in their must-win match against Karachi Electric in the Pakistani football Premier league. That's on a .uk betting site subject to Maltese law, apparently operated by staff from the Philippines.
It's kinda nuts, init?
Quite a few are operated from Gibraltar, fewer taxes and profits can be kept off-shore.
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
Ofsted denied it was marked down for that reason, but its going to be hard work to sell the parents, or come to that, the public on that.
While I bow to no-one in my dislike of political correctness (and dislike for the state's involvement in the provision of certain services), I suspect this was one of about 1,000 reasons. So, were you to be in possession of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because * Occasionally, pupils are given work which is too easy or too hard. This prevents them from making more rapid progress. * There are insufficient opportunities for teachers to improve their skills by observing best practice in the school and elsewhere. * Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Yes, because according to Mr Cole, immigrants have to be present in every rural community and taking jobs, otherwise all UKIPs points are invalidated. It's great to see such a towering intellect gracing PB.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97 2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8 3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues ... 107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society ... 944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because * Occasionally, pupils are given work which is too easy or too hard. This prevents them from making more rapid progress. * There are insufficient opportunities for teachers to improve their skills by observing best practice in the school and elsewhere. * Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
On that basis most London grammars are not outstanding schools - they're disproportionately full of Asians.
Has Ofsted ever marked a school down for being too black or Asian?
His suggestion at the end of the second link would go down like as sack of shit! Ridiculously patronising and undercuts the rest of the article IMO
I think, though, that's his point. He's not going to force you to agree with him, but he's not going to back down on expressing his point of view - which clearly differs from your own to a large degree.
Of course lots of people would not be happy with that, but it would be more honest, as he says.
I thought that's what people who felt that way did anyway
Before I get on with my day, i'm briefly reflecting on the absurdity of globalisation.
I'm being strongly encouraged to bet on Pakistan Railways in their must-win match against Karachi Electric in the Pakistani football Premier league. That's on a .uk betting site subject to Maltese law, apparently operated by staff from the Philippines.
It's kinda nuts, init?
Why it “nuts”? I think that we’re not bounded by the distance we can travel by foot in one day is wonderful, I reacll reading something on the development of SE Asia. The biggie was the introduction of the two-stroke motor. This was a machine that didn’t require much expertise to fix when it went wrong, and with it your average small farmer could transport his own produce to the market in the town 20 miles away in an hour or so, thus getting a better price.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
Ofsted denied it was marked down for that reason, but its going to be hard work to sell the parents, or come to that, the public on that.
While I bow to no-one in my dislike of political correctness (and dislike for the state's involvement in the provision of certain services), I suspect this was one of about 1,000 reasons. So, were you to be in possession of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because * Occasionally, pupils are given work which is too easy or too hard. This prevents them from making more rapid progress. * There are insufficient opportunities for teachers to improve their skills by observing best practice in the school and elsewhere. * Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Yes, because according to Mr Cole, immigrants have to be present in every rural community and taking jobs, otherwise all UKIPs points are invalidated. It's great to see such a towering intellect gracing PB.
Mr M, your ability to misunderstand and misconstrue is truly mind-boggling!
What Tories can't get is that the reason these people are 'New Labour Luvvies' is because they believe in the wealthy paying more tax and they include themselves.
Yet a lot of these people seem in the least bit reticent about adjusting their tax affairs to minimise what they pay?
"Get the rich to pay more" seems to mean "Get people that are richer than me to pay more".
The London Tax is already causing real disquiet among London Labour MPs.
It seems that they feel London is a more important cause than the NHS,
Well, quite.
In my first job, one of the area managers - not the one I reported to - claimed to be a Labour supporter. He drove a big Merc, lived in a huge house and sent his kids to private schools. Whenever it was pointed out to him (this was in the 1980s) that he could perfectly well refuse Lawson's tax cuts if he thought taxes were too low, and could indeed send the state more tax to assuage his conscience, he would angrily retort that he wasn't going to do it unless everyone else was. In other words, what he wanted was higher taxes on other people.
This attitude still exists in spades and is often IME rationalised out of a belief that well-paid people deserve to keep less of their own money according to how they earned it. Someone who makes a few million a year in the City is a crook and should have it all taken away, but Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good that we're all grateful for and that does no harm.
Most Labour supporters appear to believe that the only legitimate personal fortunes are those made in the public sector or in television. Everyone else should have theirs taken away.
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
As the nation(s) of the British Isles have taken on multiculturalism since the days of Rome it seems to me than "Non believers" are on a long term sticky wicket.
I'm minded to endorse a view that such people should be deported for rank stupidity and join the ranks of the STV numpties in the bliss of Ascension Island and South Thule.
His suggestion at the end of the second link would go down like as sack of shit! Ridiculously patronising and undercuts the rest of the article IMO
I think, though, that's his point. He's not going to force you to agree with him, but he's not going to back down on expressing his point of view - which clearly differs from your own to a large degree.
Of course lots of people would not be happy with that, but it would be more honest, as he says.
The best thing about an honest an open environment is that lefties like Mason would be able to understand that those on the other side have actually a range of views, and most of them aren't just bigots. He mentions in his piece that non-liberal views exist among the young, but he fails to recognise this depends on the group. Gay people, for example, are increasingly tolerated, both on the surface and in deeper attitudes. But then gay people aren't a community with widespread intolerant attitudes themselves.
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I do find these off-the-wall suggestions somewhat appealing.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
What about people with baccalaureates?
Would it be that hard to determine whether the baccalaureate had enough Maths content of a sufficient level to be equivalent to a GCSE/A-level?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
Why should maths be prioritised over history? The latter probably better informs you for making epochal political decisions.
Dr. Spyn, unsurprising, but nevertheless sets an extremely bad precedent. The ratchet of regulation and law will only go one way as Brussels tries to steal power for itself. The better the EU's gone the better, because it will fail sooner or later. And if it's later, the pain will be greater.
I know some work colleagues from the Rochester area who will see today's vote as blessed relief - ending weeks of low grade harrassment from politicians and media alike.
Only 6 months till the next round I said cheerily. Their smiles disappeared faster than a Labour poll lead.
Mike regularly makes the following point, or variants upon it:
"To many, in any case, their vote is for an individual not a party or a potential prime minister. Incumbency can be a key element thus undermining a bit further the idea that national party totals are important."
Personal votes for candidates are certainly there, but to balance this, I often find just as many who were really underwhelmed with their sitting MP. "What's (s)he done for me/the constituency? Bugger all...."
Nope I agree with Mike on this. In fact I would say that the number of people for whom the local candidate is more important than the party is growing given the disillusionment with centralised Westminster party politics. It would be great to see this trend increase as it would drag voting back to its legal and constitutional reality.
It wasn’t THAT long ago that there were no party labels on the ballot paper. Came in the 70’s I think (could be wrong). Before that it was important to ensure that one’s candidates name was in front of the electorate morning, noon and night. There was ..... may still be .... also an issue around order of candidates names. There’s some evidence, although I can’t recall where, that Mr or Ms Brown is statistically more likely to be elected than Mr or Ms Wheeler. (and not just in Cowdenbeath!) Are candidates now listed on the ballot paper in random order?
During drunken evenings discussing all manner of pointless but enjoyable topics, my brother in law has often suggested that the voting slip should present the candidate, party and top policies all randomised. Before their vote would count the voter would have to link the candidate with the correct party and the correct policy.
Totally unworkable of course and undemocratic so I am not advocating it but does rather highlight the problem with a portion of the electorate.
I have long thought that some sort of modest knowledge test should be a requirement before people are allowed to vote. For example, which party is in government? Who is the Prime Minister? Who is the leader of the Opposition? - that sort of thing.
Anyone unable to answer these questions is unfit to vote. Procedurally you would perhaps have people enter their votes via a terminal. They would respond to the questions and then vote, but if they got the questions wrong, their vote would be discarded.
Quick response to posts: Indigo: not sure where you get the flat £3K figure for the mansion tax from. As I understand it, the proposal is 1% over £2 million. If your garage is worth £3m that's £10K. If it's worth £10 million that's £80K. That's why it taises the stated sums. And yes, there will be people in £10 million properties who can't easily raise £80K/year. They might have to accumulate the amount and leave a bit less to their heirs, or move to an £8 million property. It's one of those minor things that can happen in an otherwise good life. Do I have trouble defending it? Nope. Would I hesitate if I were a London MP? Also nope. The next Government, whether Labour or Tory, is going to have a lot more difficult challenges than that.
Tim B FPT: yes, there were indeed metrics for what the extra NHS money did - that was the point of the targets such as having no more than 18 weeks from first GP visit with a complaint to operation (unless delayed for medical reasons). When I was elected in 1997 the waiting time was up to 2 years.You could argue the money should have gone on omething else, but despite the occasional disaster the general improvement that it produced is not in serious dispute.
Personal vote: Butler & King used in the polarised 60s to estimate that the absolute highest that a good MP/candidate could raise the voting share in a GE (in a by-elecion, special rules apply) was 5% of the voters. In our disillisioned times when party allgisance is weaker, I think that's up to 10%, i.e. if an average Tory would score 35% in constituency X, a really brilliant Tory could make it 45%, but no more. For a merely good candidate the figure is probably now still 5%. It's become quite important, in other words, though it's not usually decisive.
Nick, can I ask you a hypothetical question?
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
In my first job, one of the area managers - not the one I reported to - claimed to be a Labour supporter. He drove a big Merc, lived in a huge house and sent his kids to private schools. Whenever it was pointed out to him (this was in the 1980s) that he could perfectly well refuse Lawson's tax cuts if he thought taxes were too low, and could indeed send the state more tax to assuage his conscience, he would angrily retort that he wasn't going to do it unless everyone else was. In other words, what he wanted was higher taxes on other people.
That sounds sensible to me. Wouldn't you agree with the principle?
Let's say there were no taxes in your town, and also no sewers, or only sewers in the rich people's houses. That would make the town very smelly and unsanitary, so it would clearly be in everybody's interests for everyone to chip in and get some sewers built. But that doesn't mean you'd want to pay if nobody else did, since you'd spend a whole load of your own money but you'd hardly make a dent in the sewer problem. But if you could get the government to make everybody pay their share too, you'd be happy to pay yours. You might even help organize persuading the government to do this.
Now you may think there are already more sewers than there should be in Britain, not to mention too much money spent on healthcare or welfare or overseas aid or whatever. But there must be some level of tax-and-spend that you would think was too low. At whatever level that is, don't you end up in the same position as the man in the Merc?
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”.
of the full report, I would guess it would read something like this:
School x was rated as very good, rather than outstanding because
1. Value add per pupil was 0.86 vs an average for excellent schools of 0.97 2. Deficencies in the teaching of maths that led to 54% of pupils failing to make key stage 8 3. Failure to provide adequate support for students with learning issues ... 107. Lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society ... 944. Pastoral care, while good, could have done better in areas of chapter 13, 14, and 15.
Of course, I could be wrong. But I have spent as much time with journalists as politicians. And I have come to be every bit as cynical about the latter as the former.
The report summary lists six reasons why it is a good school, good behaviour, good leadership, safe, interesting etc, and then
It is not yet an outstanding school because
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2432799/urn/120463.pdf As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
On that basis most London grammars are not outstanding schools - they're disproportionately full of Asians.
Has Ofsted ever marked a school down for being too black or Asian?
That's not clear from the article; it talks about the concern around the activities of various school societies but it doesn't say that a pupil composition that is 90% ethnic minority is bad.
The claim friom Ofsted about the school in Lincolnshire is that the pupils aren't able to enjoy the blessings of diversity because there are too many whites, it must follow that in a school that's only 10% white the same disadvantage accrues to the ethnics, who won't find out at school why their parents left Bangladesh and came to Britain. This in turn leaves them inequipped to prosper in Britain.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
And there was me thinking the Labour Party believed in progressive taxation.
Local property taxes are a regressive nonsense bearing no relation to ability to pay or the number of people in a household using local services. The "Mansion Tax" (Note Mansion) is simply a property envy tax as stupid as the window tax of yesteryear.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
I think that what people are concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. They start at £2m and next thing you know it will be £1m (still wealthy, undoubtedly), then £750,000 (priveleged and top few %) and then...
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
He featured in one of the more bizarre nights of my life, along with Chris de Burgh, several of Duran Duran, the 9th Earl Spencer and a very, very wasted Hoff......
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
I think that what people are concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. They start at £2m and next thing you know it will be £1m (still wealthy, undoubtedly), then £750,000 (priveleged and top few %) and then...
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
The arguments against this policy all seem incredibly contorted. If you're worried about a slippery slope it's a bit weird to advocate immediately jumping down to the bottom of the slope.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
The stamp duty on a £140 million flat is £9.8 million to a private buyer and £21 million if a company.
How does a council tax bill compare to that?
Labour tax on rich houses: 4% Tory tax on rich houses: 7-15%
How about a 2 bedroom flat in Battersea or Whitechapel? There are some defined as "mansions"?
The ofsted/diversity thing does all sound a bit silly, but I'm not really sure what the problem is. Are parents going to not send their kids to the school?
What it seems to boil down to is the teachers/head (and most parents, although i'm sure you'll find a few disgruntled ones) think the school deserves an outstanding rating and the reasons given for it only being good include one slightly ridiculous reason, probably copy and pasted in by a time-pressed ofsted admin temp.
The only real impact it has is to make ofsted look a bit ridiculous, and highlights the arbitrariness of putting schools in categories. Why not have a traffic light system for schools as they do on food? That can include a diversity rating %. For rural schools, that's probably always going to be red, but it won't matter.
What Tories can't get is that the reason these people are 'New Labour Luvvies' is because they believe in the wealthy paying more tax and they include themselves.
Yet a lot of these people seem in the least bit reticent about adjusting their tax affairs to minimise what they pay?
"Get the rich to pay more" seems to mean "Get people that are richer than me to pay more".
The London Tax is already causing real disquiet among London Labour MPs.
It seems that they feel London is a more important cause than the NHS,
Well, quite.
In my first job, one of the area managers - not the one I reported to - claimed to be a Labour supporter. He drove a big Merc, lived in a huge house and sent his kids to private schools. Whenever it was pointed out to him (this was in the 1980s) that he could perfectly well refuse Lawson's tax cuts if he thought taxes were too low, and could indeed send the state more tax to assuage his conscience, he would angrily retort that he wasn't going to do it unless everyone else was. In other words, what he wanted was higher taxes on other people.
This attitude still exists in spades and is often IME rationalised out of a belief that well-paid people deserve to keep less of their own money according to how they earned it. Someone who makes a few million a year in the City is a crook and should have it all taken away, but Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good that we're all grateful for and that does no harm.
Most Labour supporters appear to believe that the only legitimate personal fortunes are those made in the public sector or in television. Everyone else should have theirs taken away.
Is Jimmy Carr a Labour supporter? He may be: I do not know. But we should be suspicious of this groupthink that anyone who has been on telly votes Labour, or that everyone in the public sector does.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
I think that what people are concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. They start at £2m and next thing you know it will be £1m (still wealthy, undoubtedly), then £750,000 (priveleged and top few %) and then...
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
The arguments against this policy all seem incredibly contorted. If you're worried about a slippery slope it's a bit weird to advocate immediately jumping down to the bottom of the slope.
Taxing a £2m property makes sense because, whatever the details, someone who lives in a £2m property is rich.
But it seems arbitrary and policy on the hoof so people are worried.
People like certainty in life and especially from their tax regime. Hence the criticism.
In my first job, one of the area managers - not the one I reported to - claimed to be a Labour supporter. He drove a big Merc, lived in a huge house and sent his kids to private schools. Whenever it was pointed out to him (this was in the 1980s) that he could perfectly well refuse Lawson's tax cuts if he thought taxes were too low, and could indeed send the state more tax to assuage his conscience, he would angrily retort that he wasn't going to do it unless everyone else was. In other words, what he wanted was higher taxes on other people.
That sounds sensible to me. Wouldn't you agree with the principle?
Let's say there were no taxes in your town, and also no sewers, or only sewers in the rich people's houses. That would make the town very smelly and unsanitary, so it would clearly be in everybody's interests for everyone to chip in and get some sewers built. But that doesn't mean you'd want to pay if nobody else did, since you'd spend a whole load of your own money but you'd hardly make a dent in the sewer problem. But if you could get the government to make everybody pay their share too, you'd be happy to pay yours. You might even help organize persuading the government to do this.
Now you may think there are already more sewers than there should be in Britain, not to mention too much money spent on healthcare or welfare or overseas aid or whatever. But there must be some level of tax-and-spend that you would think was too low. At whatever level that is, don't you end up in the same position as the man in the Merc?
Edmund, you are suffering from an impression that James Bond will accept any reasonable argument. His right wing emptyhead has already decided that since some of his ilk will pay the mansion tax and 99.5% others will not, therefore, it is bad !
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
I think that what people are concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. They start at £2m and next thing you know it will be £1m (still wealthy, undoubtedly), then £750,000 (priveleged and top few %) and then...
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
The arguments against this policy all seem incredibly contorted. If you're worried about a slippery slope it's a bit weird to advocate immediately jumping down to the bottom of the slope.
Taxing a £2m property makes sense because, whatever the details, someone who lives in a £2m property is rich.
But it seems arbitrary and policy on the hoof so people are worried.
People like certainty in life and especially from their tax regime. Hence the criticism.
Who are these people you're speaking for? The policy's polling fine.
Tax thresholds are all arbitrary values based on balancing a bunch of different factors (some of them political). You can't expect the starting rate for this one to be deductible from the speed of light in a vacuum.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
Quick response to posts: Indigo: not sure where you get the flat £3K figure for the mansion tax from. As I understand it, the proposal is 1% over £2 million. If your garage is worth £3m that's £10K. If it's worth £10 million that's £80K. That's why it taises the stated sums. And yes, there will be people in £10 million properties who can't easily raise £80K/year. They might have to accumulate the amount and leave a bit less to their heirs, or move to an £8 million property. It's one of those minor things that can happen in an otherwise good life. Do I have trouble defending it? Nope. Would I hesitate if I were a London MP? Also nope. The next Government, whether Labour or Tory, is going to have a lot more difficult challenges than that.
Tim B FPT: yes, there were indeed metrics for what the extra NHS money did - that was the point of the targets such as having no more than 18 weeks from first GP visit with a complaint to operation (unless delayed for medical reasons). When I was elected in 1997 the waiting time was up to 2 years.You could argue the money should have gone on omething else, but despite the occasional disaster the general improvement that it produced is not in serious dispute.
Nick, can I ask you a hypothetical question?
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
I foresee the long suffering taxpayer footing the bill for MPs second homes.
Taxing a £2m property makes sense because, whatever the details, someone who lives in a £2m property is rich.
1) Not until they sell it.
2) Also, if someone owns a £2 million house but has £1.5 million mortgage, they are less wealthy than someone who owns a £600,000 house outright. The real owner of the £2 million house in this instance is the mortgage company.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
1) A lawyer in a big London law firm with a house in Gloucestershire worth £1.5m, a flat in Bloomsbury worth £1.25m, a portfoliio of shares worth £1m, and a pension fund worth £3m
2) A couple who live in a £1.5m house in Sevenoaks who also own an apartment in the Val d'Isere (€850K) and three buy-to-let properties worth £400K each
3) Or, for that matter, someone whose pension pot (in accumulating which they have paid no tax, unlike the pensioner couple in my example) is worth over £2m, which means anyone in the public sector with an index-linked pension of more than around £45K. (I asked bigjohnowls about this last night - he didn't seem to understand the question, which tells you a lot).
If Labour want to introduce a Wealth Tax, they should propose a Wealth Tax. Or if they want to make property taxes more progressive and equitable, they should propose more Council Tax bands (or indeed a return to the old Rates system). A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
1) A lawyer in a big London law firm with a house in Gloucestershire worth £1.5m, a flat in Bloomsbury worth £1.25m, a portfoliio of shares worth £1m, and a pension fund worth £3m
2) A couple who live in a £1.5m house in Sevenoaks who also own an apartment in the Val d'Isere (€850K) and three buy-to-let properties worth £400K each
3) Or, for that matter, someone whose pension pot (in accumulating which they have paid no tax, unlike the pensioner couple in my example) is worth over £2m, which means anyone in the public sector with an index-linked pension of more than around £45K. (I asked bigjohnowls about this last night - he didn't seem to understand the question, which tells you a lot).
If Labour want to introduce a Wealth Tax, they should propose a Wealth Tax. Or if they want to make property taxes more progressive and equitable, they should propose more Council Tax bands (or indeed a return to the old Rates system). A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
Extra council tax bands are the only proposal to sort of achieve the Labour party aims.
Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good
People actually buy his DVDs ?!
Do the maths -- annual tour plays to half a million people -- ticket sales split between theatre and comic (no support acts; no dancers or musicians) -- say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket. Ignore teeshirt sales.
Then film the last date and sell the DVD at Christmas.
It is estimated that 108,000 homes – the vast majority in London and the South East – will be caught by the tax.
108,000 homes at £3000 each is less than a third of a billion, not exactly the 1.5bn Balls was promising, he would have to charge £15k/year to make that. Another money making wheeze bites the dust.
I wonder how long it will be before someone suggests barring owners of any above average value house from any entitlement to welfare such as Child Benefit, Retirement Pension, Disability Allowance?
Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good
People actually buy his DVDs ?!
Do the maths -- annual tour plays to half a million people -- ticket sales split between theatre and comic (no support acts; no dancers or musicians) -- say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket. Ignore teeshirt sales.
Then film the last date and sell the DVD at Christmas.
"say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket."
Surely Jimmy Carr Ltd or some such should get the revenue proceeds. To have it go straight into his personal bank account would be the very height of idiocy.
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
1) A lawyer in a big London law firm with a house in Gloucestershire worth £1.5m, a flat in Bloomsbury worth £1.25m, a portfoliio of shares worth £1m, and a pension fund worth £3m
2) A couple who live in a £1.5m house in Sevenoaks who also own an apartment in the Val d'Isere (€850K) and three buy-to-let properties worth £400K each
3) Or, for that matter, someone whose pension pot (in accumulating which they have paid no tax, unlike the pensioner couple in my example) is worth over £2m, which means anyone in the public sector with an index-linked pension of more than around £45K. (I asked bigjohnowls about this last night - he didn't seem to understand the question, which tells you a lot).
If Labour want to introduce a Wealth Tax, they should propose a Wealth Tax. Or if they want to make property taxes more progressive and equitable, they should propose more Council Tax bands (or indeed a return to the old Rates system). A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
Richard (& @chestnut and your poor person with a £1.5m mortgage).
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
I think that what people are concerned about is the "slippery slope" argument. They start at £2m and next thing you know it will be £1m (still wealthy, undoubtedly), then £750,000 (priveleged and top few %) and then...
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
The arguments against this policy all seem incredibly contorted. If you're worried about a slippery slope it's a bit weird to advocate immediately jumping down to the bottom of the slope.
Taxing a £2m property makes sense because, whatever the details, someone who lives in a £2m property is rich.
But it seems arbitrary and policy on the hoof so people are worried.
People like certainty in life and especially from their tax regime. Hence the criticism.
Also its in addition to council tax, and doesn't replace it. Its also a cliff-edge, 1.9m no tax, 2.1m lots of tax and you can't predict when your property is going to cross the line. It also doesn't take into account any mortgage on the property, 1.9m bought in cash, no tax, 2.1m on a 75% mortgage, lots of tax.
The biggest problem is that it was claimed there would be no valuations done. It would be up to the homeowner to satisfy themselves of the value of their property and fill in their tax return appropriately, and risk a challenge from HMRC if they dont believe them, which is imo a disgraceful way to behave.. This will leave lots of people in the upper 1m property range having to pay for valuations every year just incase their property goes over 2m, or risk a large bill and fine from HRMC. If property continues to grow at 12-15% per year in London people with sub-1m houses are going to start having to do annual valuations in 3-4 years just in case.
Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good
People actually buy his DVDs ?!
Do the maths -- annual tour plays to half a million people -- ticket sales split between theatre and comic (no support acts; no dancers or musicians) -- say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket. Ignore teeshirt sales.
Then film the last date and sell the DVD at Christmas.
"say comic gets £10 to £20 per ticket."
Surely Jimmy Carr Ltd or some such should get the revenue proceeds. To have it go straight into his personal bank account would be the very height of idiocy.
Indeed -- and I doubt the comic would be making tax arrangements anyway: they have managers and accountants. But the point is that comedians -- the successful ones -- can get very rich very fast because they play large theatres and have almost no expenses.
Ironically, the panel shows they are on are generally quite badly paid, and really serve only to make a comic famous and sell tickets.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
I never said they weren't. I was asking why the tax should fall, completely arbitrarily, on one couple who are rich and not on another couple who are richer, simply because of the detail of what assets (or even what physical properties) make up their wealth.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer, from Nick P or any Labour support.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
If you have 4 £1m houses you are twice as rich, and you pay no mansion tax.
Its also a cliff-edge, 1.9m no tax, 2.1m lots of tax
Is it? Maybe I'm missing something from the FT piece you linked but as far as I could tell it's just a normal tax with an allowance, so the difference between 1.9m and 2.1m is some fairly teensy fraction of 0.1m.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
The arguments against this policy all seem incredibly contorted. If you're worried about a slippery slope it's a bit weird to advocate immediately jumping down to the bottom of the slope.
Taxing a £2m property makes sense because, whatever the details, someone who lives in a £2m property is rich.
But it seems arbitrary and policy on the hoof so people are worried.
People like certainty in life and especially from their tax regime. Hence the criticism.
Also its in addition to council tax, and doesn't replace it. Its also a cliff-edge, 1.9m no tax, 2.1m lots of tax and you can't predict when your property is going to cross the line. It also doesn't take into account any mortgage on the property, 1.9m bought in cash, no tax, 2.1m on a 75% mortgage, lots of tax.
The biggest problem is that it was claimed there would be no valuations done. It would be up to the homeowner to satisfy themselves of the value of their property and fill in their tax return appropriately, and risk a challenge from HMRC if they dont believe them, which is imo a disgraceful way to behave.. This will leave lots of people in the upper 1m property range having to pay for valuations every year just incase their property goes over 2m, or risk a large bill and fine from HRMC. If property continues to grow at 12-15% per year in London people with sub-1m houses are going to start having to do annual valuations in 3-4 years just in case.
Yes v good point. There is a lot wrong with it and if I were being partisan (!) I would say that it is another idiotic Lab soundbite policy which addresses an important issue but manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once an actual policy is formed.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
Only if you sell it.
It is naive to imagine that there aren't any ordinary people living in very well to do areas now who bought their houses 30-40 years ago for a pittance when no one would contemplate living in them.
You miss the point entirely about the mortgage as well.
It will need to be serviced from income which has already been subject to tax.
Net real wealth is very different to the perceived wealth of a £2 million place that may belong mainly to the bank.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
But hang on a sec. Income tax is a general tax to pay for government spending and has long been progressive. Council tax is surely designed though to pay for council services (hence the name)? Does the billionaire buyer use 390 times more services per year? Unlikely. In fact many of these overseas buyers are an asset to local councils as they pay large amounts in tax and don't use any services at all.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
I never said they weren't. I was asking why the tax should fall, completely arbitrarily, on one couple who are rich and not on another couple who are richer, simply because of the detail of what assets (or even what physical properties) make up their wealth.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer.
That's what taxes are like. Couple A is richer than Couple B but Couple B pay more petrol tax because they live in an area with heavier traffic and commute to work by car whereas Couple A only travel short distances and do so borne aloft by their servants, etc etc etc.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
I never said they weren't. I was asking why the tax should fall, completely arbitrarily, on one couple who are rich and not on another couple who are richer, simply because of the detail of what assets (or even what physical properties) make up their wealth.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer, from Nick P or any Labour support.
Richard,
This is analogous to the single income / dual income argument over the child benefit income threshold.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
I never said they weren't. I was asking why the tax should fall, completely arbitrarily, on one couple who are rich and not on another couple who are richer, simply because of the detail of what assets (or even what physical properties) make up their wealth.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer, from Nick P or any Labour support.
The arbitrary element is not the cut-off with attendant cliff edge; as EiT notes, those occur all over the shop (most recently with Child Benefit).
The arbitrary element is the introduction of a tax apropos of nothing on the whim of a weak politician in search of soundbite policies.
And the concern should focus on the fact that there is no sound basis of this "tax" and therefore it might be abused and the threshold lowered because there is no banding or documentation. It will solely be at the whim of a (Labour) politician.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
I never said they weren't. I was asking why the tax should fall, completely arbitrarily, on one couple who are rich and not on another couple who are richer, simply because of the detail of what assets (or even what physical properties) make up their wealth.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer.
That's what taxes are like. Couple A is richer than Couple B but Couple B pay more petrol tax because they live in an area with heavier traffic and commute to work by car whereas Couple A only travel short distances and do so borne aloft by their servants, etc etc etc.
That's because Couple B are polluting the environment more than Couple A.
Rather than carrying out a wholescale revaluation of properties through the council tax system, the Labour leader wants to impose a similar scheme to the one developed by George Osborne designed to target super-wealthy individuals who buy large houses through corporations, avoiding stamp duty.
It forces people who buy houses through company "envelopes" to report to the taxman what the house is worth, with those over £500,000 subject to a tax. A penalty of 30 per cent of the tax owed is imposed if the wrong amount is declared through "carlessness", rising to 100 per cent if it was deliberate.
Liam Bailey, head of research at Knight Frank, said the scheme was unsuitable for the general property market.
"It is aimed at corporate structures, for really sophisticated property owners with an extensive panel of experts and accountants. We are talking about a much broader set of ordinary working people who happen to occupy expensive houses."
"It will be an expensive and nerve-wracking process with a hefty fine if they get it wrong." George Bull, senior tax partner at Baker Tilly, said the combination of a volatile property market with self-assessment was a "toxic mix" for homeowners.
"It's a given that if you drive the taxpayer to fill the return, they have to take complete responsibility for the figures on the return. They will be exposed to penalties and interest charges if HMRC disagree on the property value," he said.
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
But hang on a sec. Income tax is a general tax to pay for government spending and has long been progressive. Council tax is surely designed though to pay for council services (hence the name)? Does the billionaire buyer use 390 times more services per year? Unlikely. In fact many of these overseas buyers are an asset to local councils as they pay large amounts in tax and don't use any services at all.
Can I pay the portion of the council tax for gritters and bin collection only then ?
If the legitimacy of the outcome of a general election is questioned on national aggregate votes share grounds there is one simple response – the legitimacy derives from the nation voting overwhelmingly in May 2011 to retain the first past the post system.
What an excellent point, Mike.
That's a bit like saying if planes started falling out of the sky, and power stations blowing up, it couldn't be questioned - the legitimacy derives from the nation voting overwhelmingly in May 2011 to declare the value of PI to be 3. [when the only alternative on offer was 3.5]
Quick response to posts: Indigo: not sure where you get the flat £3K figure for the mansion tax from. As I understand it, the proposal is 1% over £2 million. If your garage is worth £3m that's £10K. If it's worth £10 million that's £80K. That's why it taises the stated sums. And yes, there will be people in £10 million properties who can't easily raise £80K/year. They might have to accumulate the amount and leave a bit less to their heirs, or move to an £8 million property. It's one of those minor things that can happen in an otherwise good life. Do I have trouble defending it? Nope. Would I hesitate if I were a London MP? Also nope. The next Government, whether Labour or Tory, is going to have a lot more difficult challenges than that.
Tim B FPT: yes, there were indeed metrics for what the extra NHS money did - that was the point of the targets such as having no more than 18 weeks from first GP visit with a complaint to operation (unless delayed for medical reasons). When I was elected in 1997 the waiting time was up to 2 years.You could argue the money should have gone on omething else, but despite the occasional disaster the general improvement that it produced is not in serious dispute.
Personal vote: Butler & King used in the polarised 60s to estimate that the absolute highest that a good MP/candidate could raise the voting share in a GE (in a by-elecion, special rules apply) was 5% of the voters. In our disillisioned times when party allgisance is weaker, I think that's up to 10%, i.e. if an average Tory would score 35% in constituency X, a really brilliant Tory could make it 45%, but no more. For a merely good candidate the figure is probably now still 5%. It's become quite important, in other words, though it's not usually decisive.
As BJO has said, Ed Balls has repeatedly said that people with houses between £2 and £3 mio will only pay £3k p.a. hence the criticism that it won't raise the sorts of sums being claimed. Hence also the uncertainty about whether the threshold will end up being much lower.
"Details of potential exemptions to the tax do not appear to have been worked up by either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. However we did get an insight into Labour thinking from Chris Leslie MP, who confirmed in the House of Commons that the list of exceptions to the recently introduced Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) “…may well serve as a guide as to how a mansion tax could work in future”.
The exemptions for the ATED are fairly wide ranging and include those properties owned and used by charities or social housing providers, farmhouses and some properties used by businesses to house employees. More significantly the list of exemptions includes properties rented to third parties."
"In order to raise the targeted revenue the value threshold for the tax would need to be reduced from £2m to either £1.5m (to raise £1.7bn) or £1.25m (to raise £2bn), and potentially even lower once exemptions and the cost of collection are allowed for"
"Details of potential exemptions to the tax do not appear to have been worked up by either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. However we did get an insight into Labour thinking from Chris Leslie MP, who confirmed in the House of Commons that the list of exceptions to the recently introduced Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) “…may well serve as a guide as to how a mansion tax could work in future”.
The exemptions for the ATED are fairly wide ranging and include those properties owned and used by charities or social housing providers, farmhouses and some properties used by businesses to house employees. More significantly the list of exemptions includes properties rented to third parties."
"In order to raise the targeted revenue the value threshold for the tax would need to be reduced from £2m to either £1.5m (to raise £1.7bn) or £1.25m (to raise £2bn), and potentially even lower once exemptions and the cost of collection are allowed for"
So BTL landlords and farmers excluded - quelle surprise ^_~
Actually thinking this through a touch more I think the third party 'rent out' exemption has potential future benefit for me personally...
The Mansion Tax makes no sense at all. Can any Labour support explain why a pensioner couple, who bought their modest house in an inexpensive part of London 30 years ago, and paid for it entirely by mortgage payments out of taxed income, and who now have little income, should have to pay a chunky sum, and yet the following people don't:
1) A lawyer in a big London law firm with a house in Gloucestershire worth £1.5m, a flat in Bloomsbury worth £1.25m, a portfoliio of shares worth £1m, and a pension fund worth £3m
2) A couple who live in a £1.5m house in Sevenoaks who also own an apartment in the Val d'Isere (€850K) and three buy-to-let properties worth £400K each
3) Or, for that matter, someone whose pension pot (in accumulating which they have paid no tax, unlike the pensioner couple in my example) is worth over £2m, which means anyone in the public sector with an index-linked pension of more than around £45K. (I asked bigjohnowls about this last night - he didn't seem to understand the question, which tells you a lot).
If Labour want to introduce a Wealth Tax, they should propose a Wealth Tax. Or if they want to make property taxes more progressive and equitable, they should propose more Council Tax bands (or indeed a return to the old Rates system). A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
Richard (& @chestnut and your poor person with a £1.5m mortgage).
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
If you live in a £2 mio house with a £1.9 mio mortgage you are not rich as your total housing wealth is £100K. You could have someone living in a £1 mio house a few streets away with no mortgage. That person is richer.
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/byelection/11241798/Rochester-and-Strood-by-election-live.html
GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
20/11/2014 08:37
@KellyTolhurst @CCHQPress I don't give a fuck whether you are local, and you certainly aren't a girl, or you wouldn't be allowed to stand.
I'm fog bound at Roissy :-(
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/16/better-society-let-bigots-say-what-they-think-racism-homophobia
He's one of the leftys that *get* it.
"It's very simple: they are value maximisers like everyone else. However, given they are paying limited tax, and would continue to pay limited tax with higher rates, they gain more value from the smug sense that they are better than their fellow man because they vote for higher taxes.
Correct. Unlike Audreyanne who extrapolates results of elections on how much tax they might have to pay multiplyed by her prejudice you seem to have been out more
Quoting a vote share excluding N.Ireland. Don't they count? I do hope the DUP form part of a governing coalition to teach you some manners.
Using a Government held referendum as a source of legitimacy. This echoes the 'false dichotomy' David Cameron so loves, which is why he loves FPTP.
Finally, a dyed-in-the-wool LibDem supporting FPTP after years pushing PR, so they don't get wiped out as they were in the European Elections.
Meanwhile, Labour, who's candidate has languished in the recent polls, have bigger fish to fry.
Emily Ashton reports in The Sun that Labour supporters have lauched a petition to have Myleene Klass dropped as the face of Littlewoods.
She says a major petition accuses the singer of “unacceptable conduct” by opposing Labour’s plan to tax £2million-plus homes.
It was clear from the start that here was a brutish and low-grade specimen who ought not have been permitted to stand in the Conservative interest...Nothing that Mr Reckless has done since becoming an MP in 2010 has caused me to change my opinion. Indeed Mr Reckless’s call yesterday for migrant workers to be repatriated suggests that he might well have found a home in Nick Griffin’s BNP. The contrast between the bellicosity of his public opinions and his lack of impact in the Commons is striking. His defection to Ukip nearly two months ago reflected well on David Cameron’s Conservative Party, making it a better place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11242034/No-sign-yet-of-a-solution-to-the-shambles-within-the-Tory-party.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11242034/No-sign-yet-of-a-solution-to-the-shambles-within-the-Tory-party.html?WT.mc_id=e_3697068&WT.tsrc=email&etype=politics&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_PAM_New_2014_11_20&utm_campaign=3697068
Quick response to posts:
Indigo: not sure where you get the flat £3K figure for the mansion tax from. As I understand it, the proposal is 1% over £2 million. If your garage is worth £3m that's £10K. If it's worth £10 million that's £80K. That's why it taises the stated sums. And yes, there will be people in £10 million properties who can't easily raise £80K/year. They might have to accumulate the amount and leave a bit less to their heirs, or move to an £8 million property. It's one of those minor things that can happen in an otherwise good life. Do I have trouble defending it? Nope. Would I hesitate if I were a London MP? Also nope. The next Government, whether Labour or Tory, is going to have a lot more difficult challenges than that.
Tim B FPT: yes, there were indeed metrics for what the extra NHS money did - that was the point of the targets such as having no more than 18 weeks from first GP visit with a complaint to operation (unless delayed for medical reasons). When I was elected in 1997 the waiting time was up to 2 years.You could argue the money should have gone on omething else, but despite the occasional disaster the general improvement that it produced is not in serious dispute.
Personal vote: Butler & King used in the polarised 60s to estimate that the absolute highest that a good MP/candidate could raise the voting share in a GE (in a by-elecion, special rules apply) was 5% of the voters. In our disillisioned times when party allgisance is weaker, I think that's up to 10%, i.e. if an average Tory would score 35% in constituency X, a really brilliant Tory could make it 45%, but no more. For a merely good candidate the figure is probably now still 5%. It's become quite important, in other words, though it's not usually decisive.
What about restricting the franchise to those holding a Maths GCSE at grade C or above, or equivalent? You could do away with any minimum age requirement at the same time, so brainy kids who get their Maths GCSE at age 8, or whatever, would then be eligible to vote.
Then perhaps require a Maths A-level in order to stand for election to Parliament.
I still can't get over his truly hilarious Bad Sex Award. An honour matched by PB's own @SeanT . theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2012/jan/23/newsnight-paul-mason
You mean typical trendy leftie. All for tax rises. So long as it is for others to pay.
I guess they take their cue from Ed. He engaged in IHT tax avoidance so why not me?
He featured in one of the more bizarre nights of my life, along with Chris de Burgh, several of Duran Duran, the 9th Earl Spencer and a very, very wasted Hoff......
TSE should have been there.
As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Mutiplied by how much tax they paid in the past 5 years.
Before I get on with my day, i'm briefly reflecting on the absurdity of globalisation.
I'm being strongly encouraged to bet on Pakistan Railways in their must-win match against Karachi Electric in the Pakistani football Premier league. That's on a .uk betting site subject to Maltese law, apparently operated by staff from the Philippines.
It's kinda nuts, init?
Of course lots of people would not be happy with that, but it would be more honest, as he says.
As one of the parents interviewed commented "We are a small rural community in Lincolnshire, there just aren't many children here from different backgrounds. The staff can't just wander the streets forcing people to come and attend.”
I thought one of UKIP’s selling points was the number in immigrants in rural communities taking jobs etc tec
On that basis most London grammars are not outstanding schools - they're disproportionately full of Asians.
Has Ofsted ever marked a school down for being too black or Asian?
If so, probably not too hard to organise entry into a GCSE Maths exam if one wanted to vote.
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Yes, because according to Mr Cole, immigrants have to be present in every rural community and taking jobs, otherwise all UKIPs points are invalidated. It's great to see such a towering intellect gracing PB.
Has Ofsted ever marked a school down for being too black or Asian?
Yes!
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30113315
I reacll reading something on the development of SE Asia. The biggie was the introduction of the two-stroke motor. This was a machine that didn’t require much expertise to fix when it went wrong, and with it your average small farmer could transport his own produce to the market in the town 20 miles away in an hour or so, thus getting a better price.
So multiculturalism is still the State religion. Non believers are already being imprisoned.
Yes, because according to Mr Cole, immigrants have to be present in every rural community and taking jobs, otherwise all UKIPs points are invalidated. It's great to see such a towering intellect gracing PB.
Mr M, your ability to misunderstand and misconstrue is truly mind-boggling!
In my first job, one of the area managers - not the one I reported to - claimed to be a Labour supporter. He drove a big Merc, lived in a huge house and sent his kids to private schools. Whenever it was pointed out to him (this was in the 1980s) that he could perfectly well refuse Lawson's tax cuts if he thought taxes were too low, and could indeed send the state more tax to assuage his conscience, he would angrily retort that he wasn't going to do it unless everyone else was. In other words, what he wanted was higher taxes on other people.
This attitude still exists in spades and is often IME rationalised out of a belief that well-paid people deserve to keep less of their own money according to how they earned it. Someone who makes a few million a year in the City is a crook and should have it all taken away, but Jimmy Carr making the same is somehow quite entitled to dodge tax because he's providing a public good that we're all grateful for and that does no harm.
Most Labour supporters appear to believe that the only legitimate personal fortunes are those made in the public sector or in television. Everyone else should have theirs taken away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30125780
I'm minded to endorse a view that such people should be deported for rank stupidity and join the ranks of the STV numpties in the bliss of Ascension Island and South Thule.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/tax-and-pensions/spanish-wealth-tax-patrimonio/
This is where the £3000 comes from ie all properties between £2m and £3m will be charged £3000. Repeated by Ed on many occasions.
Over £3m looks like much more
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9930b896-5853-11e4-b331-00144feab7de.html#axzz3JbH2uDVq
Dr. Spyn, unsurprising, but nevertheless sets an extremely bad precedent. The ratchet of regulation and law will only go one way as Brussels tries to steal power for itself. The better the EU's gone the better, because it will fail sooner or later. And if it's later, the pain will be greater.
Only 6 months till the next round I said cheerily. Their smiles disappeared faster than a Labour poll lead.
Anyone unable to answer these questions is unfit to vote. Procedurally you would perhaps have people enter their votes via a terminal. They would respond to the questions and then vote, but if they got the questions wrong, their vote would be discarded.
If Labour gets in and implements this, would you expect Labour politicians affected by it to pay the tax out of their own pockets, or would you consider it legitimate for them to designate their mansion-taxable property their second home in order to be able to reclaim the tax through their Westminster expenses?
Let's say there were no taxes in your town, and also no sewers, or only sewers in the rich people's houses. That would make the town very smelly and unsanitary, so it would clearly be in everybody's interests for everyone to chip in and get some sewers built. But that doesn't mean you'd want to pay if nobody else did, since you'd spend a whole load of your own money but you'd hardly make a dent in the sewer problem. But if you could get the government to make everybody pay their share too, you'd be happy to pay yours. You might even help organize persuading the government to do this.
Now you may think there are already more sewers than there should be in Britain, not to mention too much money spent on healthcare or welfare or overseas aid or whatever. But there must be some level of tax-and-spend that you would think was too low. At whatever level that is, don't you end up in the same position as the man in the Merc?
As Ed Balls says
“It cannot be fair that the average person pays 390 times more in council tax, as a percentage of the value of their property, than the billionaire buyer of a £140m penthouse in Hyde Park – who has seen its value rise by around £6m in the past few months alone.”
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30113315
That's not clear from the article; it talks about the concern around the activities of various school societies but it doesn't say that a pupil composition that is 90% ethnic minority is bad.
The claim friom Ofsted about the school in Lincolnshire is that the pupils aren't able to enjoy the blessings of diversity because there are too many whites, it must follow that in a school that's only 10% white the same disadvantage accrues to the ethnics, who won't find out at school why their parents left Bangladesh and came to Britain. This in turn leaves them inequipped to prosper in Britain.
Local property taxes are a regressive nonsense bearing no relation to ability to pay or the number of people in a household using local services. The "Mansion Tax" (Note Mansion) is simply a property envy tax as stupid as the window tax of yesteryear.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Malevolence-Tales-Beyond-Veil-Scott-Marryat-ebook/dp/B00PUICI5W/
A physical copy will follow shortly. It's an anthology of ghost stories, including the delightful Saxon & Khan, by me.
Also available from the publisher's site: http://shop.ticketyboopress.co.uk/index.php
The tax seems arbitrary and leaves people feeling vulnerable as there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. Why £2m? Why not £350,000? The State (Lab) is abusing its power: today, the Mansion tax; tomorrow a glass of water (your glass of water).
That's why a broadening of the Council Tax bands is a better bet (although would bring a nightmare of revaluation). It is a tax which has a structure, a transparency and a coherent logic: the greater the value of your property the more you pay.
The results may well be the same as a MT but it seems less arbitrary.
How does a council tax bill compare to that?
Labour tax on rich houses: 4%
Tory tax on rich houses: 7-15%
How about a 2 bedroom flat in Battersea or Whitechapel? There are some defined as "mansions"?
What it seems to boil down to is the teachers/head (and most parents, although i'm sure you'll find a few disgruntled ones) think the school deserves an outstanding rating and the reasons given for it only being good include one slightly ridiculous reason, probably copy and pasted in by a time-pressed ofsted admin temp.
The only real impact it has is to make ofsted look a bit ridiculous, and highlights the arbitrariness of putting schools in categories. Why not have a traffic light system for schools as they do on food? That can include a diversity rating %. For rural schools, that's probably always going to be red, but it won't matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30127337
But it seems arbitrary and policy on the hoof so people are worried.
People like certainty in life and especially from their tax regime. Hence the criticism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30128844
Tax thresholds are all arbitrary values based on balancing a bunch of different factors (some of them political). You can't expect the starting rate for this one to be deductible from the speed of light in a vacuum.
2) Also, if someone owns a £2 million house but has £1.5 million mortgage, they are less wealthy than someone who owns a £600,000 house outright. The real owner of the £2 million house in this instance is the mortgage company.
1) A lawyer in a big London law firm with a house in Gloucestershire worth £1.5m, a flat in Bloomsbury worth £1.25m, a portfoliio of shares worth £1m, and a pension fund worth £3m
2) A couple who live in a £1.5m house in Sevenoaks who also own an apartment in the Val d'Isere (€850K) and three buy-to-let properties worth £400K each
3) Or, for that matter, someone whose pension pot (in accumulating which they have paid no tax, unlike the pensioner couple in my example) is worth over £2m, which means anyone in the public sector with an index-linked pension of more than around £45K. (I asked bigjohnowls about this last night - he didn't seem to understand the question, which tells you a lot).
If Labour want to introduce a Wealth Tax, they should propose a Wealth Tax. Or if they want to make property taxes more progressive and equitable, they should propose more Council Tax bands (or indeed a return to the old Rates system). A tax which completely arbitrarily applies to a £3m property but not to two £1.5m properties makes zero sense no matter how you look at it.
Then film the last date and sell the DVD at Christmas.
Muppet Ed playing student politics
After all "they're rich".
Surely Jimmy Carr Ltd or some such should get the revenue proceeds. To have it go straight into his personal bank account would be the very height of idiocy.
If you live in a £2m house you are rich. That's it, finito, end of argument ("end of" I believe people like saying).
I agree with your Council Tax banding (revaluation apart). But any other complicated argument, with intricate exceptions, to explain why someone living in a £2m house is not rich just won't fly.
Edit: be clear, I think the Mansion Tax is a bad tax but IMO it needs to be argued that it is borderline an abuse of state power and a bad way to run the country's fiscal affairs.
The biggest problem is that it was claimed there would be no valuations done. It would be up to the homeowner to satisfy themselves of the value of their property and fill in their tax return appropriately, and risk a challenge from HMRC if they dont believe them, which is imo a disgraceful way to behave.. This will leave lots of people in the upper 1m property range having to pay for valuations every year just incase their property goes over 2m, or risk a large bill and fine from HRMC. If property continues to grow at 12-15% per year in London people with sub-1m houses are going to start having to do annual valuations in 3-4 years just in case.
Ironically, the panel shows they are on are generally quite badly paid, and really serve only to make a comic famous and sell tickets.
That's not a 'complicated argument', it's a very simple question.
I await the answer, from Nick P or any Labour support.
It is naive to imagine that there aren't any ordinary people living in very well to do areas now who bought their houses 30-40 years ago for a pittance when no one would contemplate living in them.
You miss the point entirely about the mortgage as well.
It will need to be serviced from income which has already been subject to tax.
Net real wealth is very different to the perceived wealth of a £2 million place that may belong mainly to the bank.
This is analogous to the single income / dual income argument over the child benefit income threshold.
The arbitrary element is the introduction of a tax apropos of nothing on the whim of a weak politician in search of soundbite policies.
And the concern should focus on the fact that there is no sound basis of this "tax" and therefore it might be abused and the threshold lowered because there is no banding or documentation. It will solely be at the whim of a (Labour) politician.
Lunacy!
"Details of potential exemptions to the tax do not appear to have been worked up by either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. However we did get an insight into Labour thinking from Chris Leslie MP, who confirmed in the House of Commons that the list of exceptions to the recently introduced Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED) “…may well serve as a guide as to how a mansion tax could work in future”.
The exemptions for the ATED are fairly wide ranging and include those properties owned and used by charities or social housing providers, farmhouses and some properties used by businesses to house employees. More significantly the list of exemptions includes properties rented to third parties."
"In order to raise the targeted revenue the value threshold for the tax would need to be reduced from £2m to either £1.5m (to raise £1.7bn) or £1.25m (to raise £2bn), and potentially even lower once exemptions and the cost of collection are allowed for"
Actually thinking this through a touch more I think the third party 'rent out' exemption has potential future benefit for me personally...
KEEP IT AS IT IS !
My guess is that he mansion tax will end up being a tax on pretty much all houses and will likely also end up as a wealth tax so that all wealth is taxed. And if that is the case a lot of people will find they will have to pay a proportion of the value of their house, pension (an increasingly important part of a person's wealth, particularly if they're lucky enough to have a final salary pension), savings, jewellery, furniture, cars etc to the state every year.
I think that is what some people fear and what others want - though they may be shy about saying so expressly.