"I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....? "
"Decrepit John.. Tim was a proven liar.. just what is needed on a betting site..or anywhere else really...tis good he has gone. "
I though on form he was one of the two best posters we've ever had on here...and that's saying something because there are and have been some outstanding ones.
"The second question is whether it was said. This strikes me as vanishingly unlikely. It is the sort of thing you might say to your very closest allies in private. To make such comments to a foreign diplomat you are meeting for the first time would be so far as beyond indiscrete as to be almost unimaginable. Especially when you know civil servants are listening in."
I don't agree at all. Firstly it was meant to be confidential and secondly I've yet to meet two women who get on well that don't know each others inner most secrets within a very short time. Often things much more interesting than who they'd prefer as Prime Minister!
How it became public knowledge might be of interest but my guess is it's just tittle tattle. I'm always amazed by how people want to ingratiate themselves with semi strangers-even journalists-by sharing gossip.
For Nicola lovers I'm afraid the bad news is she's just too gobby!
Sexism from a Labour Luvvie - don't tell Harriet m8, she'll cut off your cojones!
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yes, all of it - 32 Yes, most of it - 13 Yes, some of it - 14 No, none of it - 42
In fact, the average viewing audience was just under 8m - so just under 20% of the adult population. So the number who watched all of it was actually well under 20%.
I guess some may interpret watching clips on the news as watching some of it. But even so it is clear that a very large number of people are lying - people give the answer they think they should. They think the debate was an important / worthy programme to watch so it looks good to say you watched it.
It's just like the poll a few years ago when almost 50% of people said they were going to church over Christmas - when the actual attendance figure was under 10%.
Mr. City, Miliband's a proven ignoramus over energy, for which he served as a Cabinet minister.
Mr. SMukesh, entirely possible for Labour to make a number of gains in West Yorkshire. Could also face a serious challenge in a few seats as well, though.
Hello peeps. Bit knackered after delivering 2,500 bits of literature over the past three days. Man alive, Torbay has some ridiculously steep bits...
I suppose OGH has pointed out that Opinium shows that 12% of the LibDems fled the party after the debate reminded them that Clegg was their leader....?
He's spoken of little else. A veritable broken record on the subject.
Sorry I wasn't trying to be clever but I can't understand the sentence and it looks like an interesting fact. Maybe I'm being stupid
Libdem share went from 8% pre-debate to 7% post debate with Opinium. So a 12.5% drop in the relative number saying they will vote LibDem....
That 14% Wisdom number now requires a 100% relative rise from where they are. So every LibDem voter now has to find another one to take to the polling stations.... File under Tall Order....
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Rent control? Nationalise rented property? Would make a difference in London but what would in do in, say, Stoke?
1% tax on all residential property would be a start
Mr. City, Arcadius and Honorius both became emperor. That wasn't necessarily an indication of their worthy leadership skills.
Morris
Yes I was just comparing opposition leaders and the discourse of politics. I believe Ed Milliband has had some impact in that regard compared to others.
My memory goes like this : Cameron = Big Society Broken Britain Howard = can`t remember Duncan- Smith- Can`t remember Hague - Save the Pound Blair - Something about Stakeholders
That is interesting, I wonder how others remember PM's and Leaders of the Opposition in a single word or sentence.
I remember: Major= Honorable Fool Blair= The Joker from Batman Brown= Hopeless bank manager Cameron= Wooster from Jeeves&Wooster
Hague=Save the Pound IDS= Blair patsy Howard=Reassuring & Deeply Unsettling Miliband= Any character from the Big Bang Theory.
Why the Tories are done. Buy-to-let is a scourge on society. Until the Tories step in and take an almighty axe to the sector either by severely restricting mortgages for BTL or by introducing a LVT on second or non-resident property the Tories are going to be out of the game long term. Labour don't offer a solution but they have recognised the problem and for that they will get credit. The Tories are burying their heads in the sand over this issue and long term it buries them.
The tax benefits given to BTL in terms of setting off the full interest costs, repairs and our rather generous CGT regime gives those with capital an unfair advantage and our absurd HB scheme under the last government where the rents were rigged in an upwards direction at the cost of the taxpayer made BTL something of a no brainer.
Reforms to HB have reduced the return somewhat but there is a great deal more to do there. At the moment the opportunity to rent property at public expense is making the cost of housing too high for all of us. Something really needs to be done.
Rent control? Nationalise rented property? Would make a difference in London but what would in do in, say, Stoke?
1% tax on all residential property would be a start
A start of what ? Losing the next election ?
Average London house at £500k for a three bedroom in a nothing special area, and they have to pay another 5 grand a year ? Courageous!
Yes, all of it - 32 Yes, most of it - 13 Yes, some of it - 14 No, none of it - 42
In fact, the average viewing audience was just under 8m - so just under 20% of the adult population. So the number who watched all of it was actually well under 20%.
I guess some may interpret watching clips on the news as watching some of it. But even so it is clear that a very large number of people are lying - people give the answer they think they should. They think the debate was an important / worthy programme to watch so it looks good to say you watched it.
It's just like the poll a few years ago when almost 50% of people said they were going to church over Christmas - when the actual attendance figure was under 10%.
Well I agree, however I wonder how many watched it on the internet either live or simply on youtube.
So use the market, an annual residential tax based of land area rather than land value would rapidly lead people to the conclusion that apartment blocks were a good idea compared to bungalows.
A truly absurd idea, which would place an impossible fiscal burden on rural land. The other conceptual problems with land taxation notwithstanding, the owner occupier of Blackacre, a rural farm of 30 acres, would be charged to tax in excess of the owner occupier of a detached mansion of an acre in Kensington.
Yes, all of it - 32 Yes, most of it - 13 Yes, some of it - 14 No, none of it - 42
In fact, the average viewing audience was just under 8m - so just under 20% of the adult population. So the number who watched all of it was actually well under 20%.
I guess some may interpret watching clips on the news as watching some of it. But even so it is clear that a very large number of people are lying - people give the answer they think they should. They think the debate was an important / worthy programme to watch so it looks good to say you watched it.
It's just like the poll a few years ago when almost 50% of people said they were going to church over Christmas - when the actual attendance figure was under 10%.
Well I agree, however I wonder how many watched it on the internet either live or simply on youtube.
I wonder how many had it on in the background while eating dinner, reading the newspaper or playing Fruit Ninja, but count it as "watching".
So use the market, an annual residential tax based of land area rather than land value would rapidly lead people to the conclusion that apartment blocks were a good idea compared to bungalows.
A truly absurd idea, which would place an impossible fiscal burden on rural land. The other conceptual problems with land taxation notwithstanding, the owner occupier of Blackacre, a rural farm of 30 acres, would be charged to tax in excess of the owner occupier of a detached mansion of an acre in Kensington.
Did you overlook my careful use of the word "residential" ? Land zoned for farming use would either be on a different (and dramatically smaller rate) or not charged at all.
So now we know it was Scotland Office nonsence not the FCO!
This is now a slam dunk for the NATS.
The big question is how toxic this will be for the Liberal Democrats outside Scotland. It's a national story so any links to Carmichael will be covered nationally.
So now we know it was Scotland Office nonsence not the FCO!
This is now a slam dunk for the NATS.
The big question is how toxic this will be for the Liberal Democrats outside Scotland. It's a national story so any links to Carmichael will be covered nationally.
I think the rest of the country has lost interest, we have been rather naughty here and discussing the other 92% of the country for the past couple of hours, I suppose its almost time to talk about Scotland again
I have to admit I haven't looked at all, but I presume Galloway is likely to get back in at GE?
As long as Galloway has control of the local muslim machine he will have no problem.
And I believe he retains that control, since there is a lot of money tied to his celebrity status and his Middle East connections around him to influence the result in his favor, also he is more left wing than Labour and has build a career on defending muslims.
"The second question is whether it was said. This strikes me as vanishingly unlikely. It is the sort of thing you might say to your very closest allies in private. To make such comments to a foreign diplomat you are meeting for the first time would be so far as beyond indiscrete as to be almost unimaginable. Especially when you know civil servants are listening in."
I don't agree at all. Firstly it was meant to be confidential and secondly I've yet to meet two women who get on well that don't know each others inner most secrets within a very short time. Often things much more interesting than who they'd prefer as Prime Minister!
How it became public knowledge might be of interest but my guess is it's just tittle tattle. I'm always amazed by how people want to ingratiate themselves with semi strangers-even journalists-by sharing gossip.
For Nicola lovers I'm afraid the bad news is she's just too gobby!
Sexism from a Labour Luvvie - don't tell Harriet m8, she'll cut off your cojones!
I said much the same thing, less explicitly, to him earlier on when he (presumably) insulted female Aberdonians in the fish-processing and retail industry.
If his objection to Ms Sturgeon is that she is Scottish and a woman - and has a fish connection ...
Sean, if you are redeveloping an existing home and spending capital your yield is going to be much higher than the 3-4% offered in London. Rental yield for your place is going to be what, 8-10%? A 2.5% LVT won't really make that much difference to the long term picture for redevelopers like yourself and you will still get to offset mortgage interest against tax and a favourable capital gains environment. It is an issue for people who buy existing stock for cash, spend a couple of grand on decorating and then put it out for rent.
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, and you would still get a handsome return even if a LVT was put in place.
On whom would this charge to tax fall? Presumably on the freeholder given the contempt displayed for those engaging in the "wrong type" of buy-to-let. Would the freeholder still be charged even if they had twenty years ago demised the land for a term of 999 years to a lessee at a token ground rent? If not, there can be no principled reason why the tax liability shouldn't fall on tenants.
It's exactly the same thing that became obvious on Yougov last week.
The pollsters must be bricking it because the result is going to make somebody look like a serious pillock.
You could see their problem from the debate itself. When Nigel Farage mentioned health tourism people didn't DARE clap. You just can't. There was a huge and pregnant silence, then the usual moral pontification from parties that got a fraction of UKIP's share last time there was a national election.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Sean, if you are redeveloping an existing home and spending capital your yield is going to be much higher than the 3-4% offered in London. Rental yield for your place is going to be what, 8-10%? A 2.5% LVT won't really make that much difference to the long term picture for redevelopers like yourself and you will still get to offset mortgage interest against tax and a favourable capital gains environment. It is an issue for people who buy existing stock for cash, spend a couple of grand on decorating and then put it out for rent.
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, and you would still get a handsome return even if a LVT was put in place.
On whom would this charge to tax fall? Presumably on the freeholder given the contempt displayed for those engaging in the "wrong type" of buy-to-let. Would the freeholder still be charged even if they had twenty years ago demised the land for a term of 999 years to a lessee at a token ground rent? If not, there can be no principled reason why the tax liability shouldn't fall on tenants.
In the case of the council tax, which is a proxy for a tax on property value, does the tax not fall on the tenants ?
JosiasJessop re:housing. You omit the main problem that affects supply. Planning. One example. By having requirements such as 40% for "affordable housing" this badly distorts the funding of estates since the buyer of affordable are the housing associations who have much less funds.... Builders got badly burned during the boom times of the noughties with having 40% of their new built estates being almost unsaleable since the "key workers" did not want to buy the "affordable housing" and builders were forced to sell at large losses to the housing associations.... Utter madness. These 40% requirements have been temporarily eased this year. Another Planning missdirection of the market arises from the fact that by proscribing these 40% factors and Govt enforced minimum number of housing units per acre, we are not building enough bungalows. Bungalows that would attract retired people out of their houses and provide homes for families.....
Bungalows are the biggest waste of development land possible. Better to have sheltered and managed accommodation for elderly people.
What if people 60 years old do not want to live in these "sheltered and managed accommodation". Some certainly want a bungalow where they can carry on living independently for up to 30 years. Trying to buck the market leads to massive distortions in what is used.
The market (either private or public) cannot deliver what people want. The system need to change (but it will not), and people need to change their thinking.
Sean, if you are redeveloping an existing home and spending capital your yield is going to be much higher than the 3-4% offered in London. Rental yield for your place is going to be what, 8-10%? A 2.5% LVT won't really make that much difference to the long term picture for redevelopers like yourself and you will still get to offset mortgage interest against tax and a favourable capital gains environment. It is an issue for people who buy existing stock for cash, spend a couple of grand on decorating and then put it out for rent.
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, and you would still get a handsome return even if a LVT was put in place.
On whom would this charge to tax fall? Presumably on the freeholder given the contempt displayed for those engaging in the "wrong type" of buy-to-let. Would the freeholder still be charged even if they had twenty years ago demised the land for a term of 999 years to a lessee at a token ground rent? If not, there can be no principled reason why the tax liability shouldn't fall on tenants.
Are technicalities all you have in your bag of tricks?
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Lord forbid we should allow any wealthy people into the country. Confiscate their homes instead a d and fill them with penniless economic migrants. That'll enrich the country and solve all our financial problems.
Did you overlook my careful use of the word "residential" ? Land zoned for farming use would either be on a different (and dramatically smaller rate) or not charged at all.
In which case there will be a massive incentive to put land to alternative use than housing, driving up the cost of the housing further.
"However you look at this the NATIONALISTS are at the centre of this election campaign."
Front and centre and more votes for the NATS.
Those of a mildly conspiracy theorist nature might be interested in listening to Angela Eagles on Any Questions recorded last night before The Telegraph came out, where she was saying that Nicola Sturgeon wanted a Tory Govt.....
Surely this couldn't have been a pre-co-ordinated talking point. Could it?
Sights of Shadow Cabinet on Labourdoorstep today....
Khan: Tooting Angela Eagle: Harrow East and Harrow West Maria Eagle: Aberconwy Ed & Yvette: Dewsbury Chuka: Streatham Mary Creagh: Wakefield (with John Prescott) Owen Smith: Pontrypridd Tristam: at a NASUWT conference Reeves: Keighley Dougie: Paisley Dugher: Barnsley
If those are not their own seats then it gives you a list of where Labour think they have a fight.
That leaves Harrow East (CON maj 7.1%), Dewsbury (CON maj 2.8%), Keighley (CON maj 6.2%) & Barnsley (LAB maj 30% , typical UKIP vs LAB fight). All 3 Tory seats fall with a swing to Labour ranging from 1.4 to 3.6%.
Are technicalities all you have in your bag of tricks?
There is a question of principle which advocates of a land value tax must address. Should the liability fall on freeholders or leaseholders, or both, and on what principled basis? There are strong arguments that it should fall on the lessee, which you have failed to answer.
Israel leading the way in one way to alleviate our immigration problem."
Wasn't that a UKIP policy? Send all the 'darky' asylum seekers to 'bongo bongo land?' Why am I not surprised that Netanyahu should have picked it up and run with it.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Lord forbid we should allow any wealthy people into the country. Confiscate their homes instead a d and fill them with penniless economic migrants. That'll enrich the country and solve all our financial problems.
People who buy up living space and don't live in it? Yes very enriching.
Are technicalities all you have in your bag of tricks?
There is a question of principle which advocates of a land value tax must address. Should the liability fall on freeholders or leaseholders, or both, and on what principled basis? There are strong arguments that it should fall on the lessee, which you have failed to address.
Did you overlook my careful use of the word "residential" ? Land zoned for farming use would either be on a different (and dramatically smaller rate) or not charged at all.
In which case there will be a massive incentive to put land to alternative use than housing, driving up the cost of the housing further.
I don't see how that follows. If you have a bit of farm land you can sit there and make close to nothing from it, or you can apply for a change of use, build a few houses, sell them for a packet, and not care what taxes the future owners subsequently pay on the land.
Are technicalities all you have in your bag of tricks?
There is a question of principle which advocates of a land value tax must address. Should the liability fall on freeholders or leaseholders, or both, and on what principled basis? There are strong arguments that it should fall on the lessee, which you have failed to answer.
Council Tax is the precedent for a value tax falling on the tenant as I commented earlier.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Go scumbag yourself. UKIP and their policies are already too 'ugly'. Go ask Carswell if you want the truth.
Peter the punter.. Tim claimed, over many posts that he was a Cheshire Land owner who frequently gave wine tasting parties to the local gentry... then it was discovered he was in fact working in an off license in a suburb of LIVERPOOL...bit of a fib..he even complained about his kids never turning off the lights in the west wing of the mansion house..
"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Lord forbid we should allow any wealthy people into the country. Confiscate their homes instead a d and fill them with penniless economic migrants. That'll enrich the country and solve all our financial problems.
People who buy up living space and don't live in it? Yes very enriching.
The X million quid they paid for the property went into the economy. If they weren't there and someone local bought it a smaller (probably substantially smaller) amount would have gone into the economy. When that property changes hands a huge chunk of stamp duty goes to the government, rather than a smaller one without foreign buyers. I am not unsympathetic to your cause, but the drop in invisible imports would be quite a knock to our already crappy balance of trade.
Peter the punter.. Tim claimed, over many posts that he was a Cheshire Land owner who frequently gave wine tasting parties to the local gentry... then it was discovered he was in fact working in an off license in a suburb of LIVERPOOL...bit of a fib..he even complained about his kids never turning off the lights in the west wing of the mansion house..
Maybe, Richard, but it's Mike that gets sued, not you.
Israel leading the way in one way to alleviate our immigration problem."
Wasn't that a UKIP policy? Send all the 'darky' asylum seekers to 'bongo bongo land?' Why am I not surprised that Netanyahu should have picked it up and run with it.
Nothing to be surprised about. Mizrahi Jews who form a majority in Israel have not produced even one Prime Minister. All PMs have been Ashkenazis, who have always been a minority in Israel.
So the land value tax should not be charged on any property let before the relevant taxing statute is passed, which would ensure the tax is easily avoided for a very long time to come? Otherwise, you are still left with the problem of the freeholder who has "imposed terms" of a long lease at a marginal ground rent and is then faced with a charge to land value tax, which should properly fall on the lessee. In any event, this criterion provides no answer where one party doesn't accept the other's standard offer en bloc. In fact, it can have no application where any term of the lease (including the length of the term of years absolute, the level of rent service and the contents of any covenant) is negotiated between the parties. In other words, it is a wholly unprincipled basis for determining on whom the charge to tax should fall.
"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
I was sure I read something recently about a alarmingly high proportion of voters who decide on their way to the polling station. But my Google-fu is weak....
"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
What I do suspect happens, which might nett out to the same result, is that voters tell whoppers to pollsters to try and put pressure on their party. We know this happens at by-elections when voters talk about "sending a message" and then vote for their main party come the next GE. So I see no reason why a grumpy Tory might not be telling pollster they plan to vote for either Labour/LD/Kipper to put the wind up the national party when they see bad polls, but actually intends to vote Tory all along.
London property is a market like any other. There are 250 towers of mainly residential property either on the drawing board or at some stage of construction.
And some point supply will exceed demand and prices will drop. There is some evidence prices are stagnant at best in London already - while wages are increasing and inflation is zero.
Those blocks are not being built for Londoners, even City traders. They are "better than gold" for Arabs, Chinese etc who would have to take a humunguous loss before even, say, a consultant surgeon could afford one. Which they won't: they'll keep hold for better times.
Yup. It's a joke. I think UKIP could make a lot of headway in London if they had a British homes for British people policy that introduces a massive LVT for foreign owners who are non-resident for tax purposes. The Tories are too bloody weak to stand up to these cash rich foreign scumbags.
Lord forbid we should allow any wealthy people into the country. Confiscate their homes instead a d and fill them with penniless economic migrants. That'll enrich the country and solve all our financial problems.
People who buy up living space and don't live in it? Yes very enriching.
On the home alone they pay a huge dollop to the Exchequer in stamp duty. Once you own property in a country all sorts of other local and national taxes kick in. I could go on.
In the case of the council tax, which is a proxy for a tax on property value, does the tax not fall on the tenants ?
Council tax is notionally assessed by reference to property values at the date of the last valuation, but it is a charge levied for local government services. It is therefore obviously right that the general rule is that council tax falls on the tenant. A land value tax, by contrast, seems to be intended to be a tax on the beneficial enjoyment of land. It is far less easy to say a priori on whom it should fall, without considering the particular circumstances of an individual tenement.
Peter the punter.. Tim claimed, over many posts that he was a Cheshire Land owner who frequently gave wine tasting parties to the local gentry... then it was discovered he was in fact working in an off license in a suburb of LIVERPOOL...bit of a fib..he even complained about his kids never turning off the lights in the west wing of the mansion house..
He might have had an allotment in Runcorn. Such liberality with the actuality is what sometimes gets party leaders off the hook when they have made the odd injudicious remark in private
Watched BBC Network news and then the Scottish version. This story is going ever more pro-NAT. It has turned around totally.
Now there are only a few - perhaps very very few - Scotland Office officials who qualify for the description "senior civil servant". This could be one of the very rare leak enquiries which actually get a result!
The Liberals in charge of the Scotland Office shop could soon find things getting very hot.
Conclusion - NATS dominate publciity fot eh day - again - and Strugeon is vindicated.
We need more people like this in Parliament, then we wouldn't get all these stupid porn laws being put on the statute book. And who doesn't like a bit of lesbian bondage?
Watched BBC Network news and then the Scottish version. This story is going ever more pro-NAT. It has turned around totally.
Now there are only a few - perhaps very very few - Scotland Office officials who qualify for the description "senior civil servant". This could be one of the very rare leak enquiries which actually get a result!
The Liberals in charge of the Scotland Office shop could soon find things getting very hot.
Conclusion - NATS dominate publciity fot eh day - again - and Strugeon is vindicated.
Watched BBC Network news and then the Scottish version. This story is going ever more pro-NAT. It has turned around totally.
Now there are only a few - perhaps very very few - Scotland Office officials who qualify for the description "senior civil servant". This could be one of the very rare leak enquiries which actually get a result!
The Liberals in charge of the Scotland Office shop could soon find things getting very hot.
Conclusion - NATS dominate publciity fot eh day - again - and Strugeon is vindicated.
How has Sturgeon been vindicated again. Must have missed it.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
If the SNP didn't exist, Labour would be on course for a majority right now. So there may be an element of truth to that.
In his constituency a vote for the SNP makes a Labour Gov't more likely, any other vote does not. Even a random voter voting for Labour there makes a Labour Gov't less likely.
The die is cast now for the SNP - they will hose up everywhere, I laid out of Coatbridge last night and so it's a surefire thing that they will sweep the whole of Scotland now.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
You did not answer the "largest party" question. Each SNP win from Labour increase sthe Tory chances of being the largest party. It is a mathematical fact !
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM
Con 290 Lab 290 LD 30 SNP 20
Miliband is PM
Those 20 seats switching between Lab and SNP will decide who becomes PM.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
And all the right have to do is just sit back grab the popcorn and watch the lefties shred each other over a memo that really makes little difference either way.
Camerons a lucky general and their election team must be wondering why they bother as the other side are doing all the grunt work for them.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
You did not answer the "largest party" question. Each SNP win from Labour increase sthe Tory chances of being the largest party. It is a mathematical fact !
It's irrelevant who is the largest party. The party that commands a majority of the House gets to form the government.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
But it is true - certainly makes them the largest party.
A vote for the SNP reduces Tory numbers and reduces the number of potential Tory Allies as the Libs get a wiping in Scotland. At the same time it makes no difference to Ed Miliband's chance of being PM whether a seat returns a Labour or SNP MP.
So it is entirely untrue.
No, because the LDs will go with Con rather than Lab + SNP.
Con 290 Lab 270 LD 30 SNP 40
Cameron is PM
Con 290 Lab 290 LD 30 SNP 20
Miliband is PM
Those 20 seats switching between Lab and SNP will decide who becomes PM.
Scottish Labour have never brought up that argument in public though, their argument has always been the party with most seats gets to form the Government, not "The largest party gets to do a deal with the Lib Dems." Wonder why that is ?
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/04/ed-miliband-nicola-sturgeon-allegations-damning-labour-snp-david-cameron
Dave does not look to happy but Nicola looks delighted.
"Decrepit John.. Tim was a proven liar.. just what is needed on a betting site..or anywhere else really...tis good he has gone. "
I though on form he was one of the two best posters we've ever had on here...and that's saying something because there are and have been some outstanding ones.
Sorry I wasn't trying to be clever but I can't understand the sentence and it looks like an interesting fact. Maybe I'm being stupid
Yes, all of it - 32
Yes, most of it - 13
Yes, some of it - 14
No, none of it - 42
In fact, the average viewing audience was just under 8m - so just under 20% of the adult population. So the number who watched all of it was actually well under 20%.
I guess some may interpret watching clips on the news as watching some of it. But even so it is clear that a very large number of people are lying - people give the answer they think they should. They think the debate was an important / worthy programme to watch so it looks good to say you watched it.
It's just like the poll a few years ago when almost 50% of people said they were going to church over Christmas - when the actual attendance figure was under 10%.
Mr. SMukesh, entirely possible for Labour to make a number of gains in West Yorkshire. Could also face a serious challenge in a few seats as well, though.
That 14% Wisdom number now requires a 100% relative rise from where they are. So every LibDem voter now has to find another one to take to the polling stations.... File under Tall Order....
This is now a slam dunk for the NATS.
Watched All TV Debate: 35%
Watched Most of TV Debate: 13%
That implies a TV audience of about 25 million, so nearly half of the electorate.
I remember:
Major= Honorable Fool
Blair= The Joker from Batman
Brown= Hopeless bank manager
Cameron= Wooster from Jeeves&Wooster
Hague=Save the Pound
IDS= Blair patsy
Howard=Reassuring & Deeply Unsettling
Miliband= Any character from the Big Bang Theory.
Average London house at £500k for a three bedroom in a nothing special area, and they have to pay another 5 grand a year ? Courageous!
Woeful and ignorant oversimplification.
Arabs and Chinese people play markets just like anyone else which means they will sometimes take money off the table.
Alternatively, these online panels are stuffed full of political anoraks and party activists trying to influence what's reported.
It's exactly the same thing that became obvious on Yougov last week.
"However you look at this the NATIONALISTS are at the centre of this election campaign."
Front and centre and more votes for the NATS.
And I believe he retains that control, since there is a lot of money tied to his celebrity status and his Middle East connections around him to influence the result in his favor, also he is more left wing than Labour and has build a career on defending muslims.
Miliband= Any character from the Big Bang Theory.
Can`t be Penny then.
Must be Leonard Hofstader, he got the prize though in the end.
If his objection to Ms Sturgeon is that she is Scottish and a woman - and has a fish connection ...
The pollsters must be bricking it because the result is going to make somebody look like a serious pillock.
You could see their problem from the debate itself. When Nigel Farage mentioned health tourism people didn't DARE clap. You just can't. There was a huge and pregnant silence, then the usual moral pontification from parties that got a fraction of UKIP's share last time there was a national election.
Perhaps dear Nicola should run candidates in England.
Slogan: 'taxation without representation'
Israel leading the way in one way to alleviate our immigration problem.
Laws of libel apply here as much as anywhere. Mike won't appreciate getting sued.
Surely this couldn't have been a pre-co-ordinated talking point. Could it?
For the others it's their seat.
"http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-rwanda-and-israel-discuss-contracts-for-refugees-deal/
Israel leading the way in one way to alleviate our immigration problem."
Wasn't that a UKIP policy? Send all the 'darky' asylum seekers to 'bongo bongo land?' Why am I not surprised that Netanyahu should have picked it up and run with it.
"I have never been of the opinion that voters make up their minds on the day..."
Well I'm pleased to note you are not one of those who think that, whatever the polls may indicate, on the day voters will contemplate the prospect of Ed (is crap) as PM and be so appalled by the prospect that they will vote for Anybody Else.
That has always seemed to me little more than a belief in magic.
Have a care.
Too ugly to admit to a po-faced moralist like yourself perhaps (let's hope you aren;t a canvasser).
Not too ugly for the ballot box though.
And that's the problem for the pollsters, and just about everybody else.
https://twitter.com/Jefforbited/status/584351390211956736
Liberal Democrat activist uses local party HQ to film BONDAGE and PORN movies
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liberal-democrat-activist-uses-local-5460386#ICID=sharebar_twitter
So to speak...
Amongst other things...
I'll get my coat.
First Kezia Dugdale's dad admonishes her on twitter.
Now Malcolm Bruce just said, without a flicker of irony, on BBC Reporting Scotland that "a vote for the SNP makes a Tory government more likely".
He really did.
Now there are only a few - perhaps very very few - Scotland Office officials who qualify for the description "senior civil servant". This could be one of the very rare leak enquiries which actually get a result!
The Liberals in charge of the Scotland Office shop could soon find things getting very hot.
Conclusion - NATS dominate publciity fot eh day - again - and Strugeon is vindicated.
And who doesn't like a bit of lesbian bondage?
Titters...
Shurely Shome Mishtake.
So it is entirely untrue.
Con 290
Lab 270
LD 30
SNP 40
Cameron is PM
Con 290
Lab 290
LD 30
SNP 20
Miliband is PM
Those 20 seats switching between Lab and SNP will decide who becomes PM.
Camerons a lucky general and their election team must be wondering why they bother as the other side are doing all the grunt work for them.
Which tallies with Ashcroft.
Period.