Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
All those IRA attack vids only increase his popularity. The punters like Jezza more as they see more of him.
What sort of fucked up country do we live in if exposing the leader of the opposition as a terrorist sympathiser makes him MORE POPULAR?
I am lost for words. And not a little scared
Perhaps the relentless shitstorm thrown at Ed Miliband has made anyone on the centre or left think "Meh, just the right wing press throwing muck again".
Just a thought.
Also young people don't read the papers as much, and have more diverse information sources. Their influence is in long-term decline, but the decline is slow, and Corbyn is still getting buried among demographics that still consume legacy media.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead.
It's down from consistently high 40s to consistently low 40s. Now it's true Corbyn has also picked up at the expense of UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems. But, looking at the share, it simply isn't true that May has been serenely sailing along while Labour hoovers up the rest - not by a long chalk.
The bump the Tories received after the calling of the election has disappeared, but they are still up one relative to where they were ante bellum.
Or as we sometimes call it, stable within a margin of error
Labour genuinely had some rougher days at the beginning of this week, but no sign of any effect.
The trend is set now. Snowball effect. Would take a real gamechanger for the trend to reverse with just 7 days until polling day. The Tories will be relieved that there's only a week to go, not more. But it has felt like an awfully long 'snap' election for them.
That's my fear. This feels like a big emotional reflex, a national mood-change over the course of a campaign. We've had them before, quite recently. The mood shift is real and almost impossible to reverse.
The big question is, in terms of outcome: is this indyref, or Brexit?
The only emotional reflexing going on is here on PB. How you can divine the above from the box tickings of a few self-selecting political anoraks that are engaged enough to complete online opinion polls I dont know. Its just as likely there is going to be another polling disaster, the latest of many.
Mrs May is targeting people like my old Mum, a provincial voter, who doesnt do social media, barely watches the news because its too depressing (read, out of step with here rural values), isnt particularly politically active, but loves Mrs May. She will be down the polling booth like a shot when they open to put a cross in the blue box. Mrs Indigo(Snr) has never completed an online opinion poll, and neither have any of here similarly disposed neighbours.
Meanwhile rather than just hyperventilating "because BrExit", do we have any actual evidence that any more 18-24 voters will manage to find their way to the polling booths than has previously been the case ?
In other words "the opinion polls are wrong".
I hope so. I do think more young people will turn out this time, but it's not a huge cohort, and the elderly are mostly steady for con. Depends on how much the middle age love Corbyn.
Panelbase has 35-54 years olds slightly favouring the Conservatives.
The transcript of that interview which has been doing the rounds has been edited down so it's incredibly misleading. Watch the accompanying video and her answers are actually much lengthier.
I've watched it now (here). Her answers are indeed a lot lengthier and she's not as out of it as the edited transcript makes her sound, but what she said didn't have much more in the way of content.
On other occasions - e.g. in her "nuke 'em" speech in the Commons and last night trying to defend her absence from the debate in Cambridge - when she answers a question "yes" or "no" she does it in such a crazy-looking way as if to say "You didn't expect me to say 'yes' or 'no', did you? Well, I just did. That's how unusually clever and remarkable a personality I've got". But in Plymouth, the reporter received no direct answers at all.
Oh I'm not suggesting she answered questions directly or revealed previously hidden depths of oratory, just that the edited transcript that has been circulated is highly misleading.
She gave typical politician answers and the interview was not worthy of making the news outside of the local rag in which it appeared.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead.
Yes the Conservative vote share is falling , Labour vote share is rising .
And Farron is fighting to hold his seat - looks like you might be next up for leader - it really might be that bad.
welsh opinion poll out around 4pm and according to Roger Scully...
Prof Roger Scully Retweeted SharpendITV And it's an interesting one!
It's YouGov so it'll be terrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiibbbbbbllllleeeeee for the Tories...
Prof. Scully did describe it as "historic".
Zero libs?
Given recent trends it would be strange if the Tories were shown to be doing really well there still, so that makes sense. It was already a fight to hold onto the one they have.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
That works if you pay something close to a market rent. And better not let anyone catch you receiving the rent back from the kids!
Leaseholds are peppercorn - effectively the rent is in the purchase price. You are transferring less value to your children but leaving yourself with a wasting asset (and their side of the equation accreting with each passing year)
If you start mucking around with exchanges of leases and multiple cross-transfers of interests you need a decent lawyer and tax adviser, or the SDLT gets expensive very quickly indeed, particularly with the 3% additional charge (safe to assume most people with the wealth to play this game will have an existing property).
Leaseback relief should be available (this is not tax advice)
That's where the decent lawyer etc comes in.... there's a lot of scope for DIY planning going expensively wrong since SDLT got complicated.
Corbyn confirms full rights for EUs in Britain without guarantee of reciprocal. Brave.
How many of these EU citizens have the vote, or spouses and partners and close friends who will vote, etc?
This is almost a Jujutsu move from Jezza - use Theresa's supposed strength (Brexit) against her. Moreover he knows she has the Kipper vote sewn up, so he's nothing to lose by portraying himself as a centrist. It's sheer bald cheek considering his background, but who's going to care?
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead.
It's down from consistently high 40s to consistently low 40s. Now it's true Corbyn has also picked up at the expense of UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems. But, looking at the share, it simply isn't true that May has been serenely sailing along while Labour hoovers up the rest - not by a long chalk.
It wasn't really ever "consistently high 40s", the peak of the "calling an election" bounce was about 47%. It's now consistently around 44%, which isn't exactly "low 40s" either.
Labour genuinely had some rougher days at the beginning of this week, but no sign of any effect.
The trend is set now. Snowball effect. Would take a real gamechanger for the trend to reverse with just 7 days until polling day. The Tories will be relieved that there's only a week to go, not more. But it has felt like an awfully long 'snap' election for them.
That's my fear. This feels like a big emotional reflex, a national mood-change over the course of a campaign. We've had them before, quite recently. The mood shift is real and almost impossible to reverse.
The big question is, in terms of outcome: is this indyref, or Brexit?
The only emotional reflexing going on is here on PB. How you can divine the above from the box tickings of a few self-selecting political anoraks that are engaged enough to complete online opinion polls I dont know. Its just as likely there is going to be another polling disaster, the latest of many.
Mrs May is targeting people like my old Mum, a provincial voter, who doesnt do social media, barely watches the news because its too depressing (read, out of step with here rural values), isnt particularly politically active, but loves Mrs May. She will be down the polling booth like a shot when they open to put a cross in the blue box. Mrs Indigo(Snr) has never completed an online opinion poll, and neither have any of here similarly disposed neighbours.
Meanwhile rather than just hyperventilating "because BrExit", do we have any actual evidence that any more 18-24 voters will manage to find their way to the polling booths than has previously been the case ?
In other words "the opinion polls are wrong".
Sheeesh, is that meant to be acerbic or sarcastic or something? Yes, some of the polls are necessarily wrong and it is a real possibility that all of the polls are wrong - and those are statements which every single person on this site of every political hue knows to be true - except, apparently, you.
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Why do you want a Hung Parliament? Soft Brexit? or No Brexit? Or just to hurt the Brexiteering Tories?
Genuine question.
1) No Brexit isn't an option. The people have spoken, the bastards. It has to be implemented. Hell mend them.
2) That means honouring the spirit of the decision as well as the letter. The vote was won on an impulse to keep out foreigners. Brexit must be implemented in such a way that allows the government to control freedom of movement. That means leaving the single market. A car crash beckons.
3) This is going to be an economic but more importantly social disaster for Britain. The country is becoming inward-looking and irrelevant, with little sense of social cohesion.
4) To date, Brexit has been a Conservative project throughout, driven by the hard right and with the government using inflammatory language to rally the newspapers. It is utterly disgusting.
5) I am equally appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, who is a dishonest and treacherous cretin. I find the idea of voting for him as incomprehensible as the idea of voting for Donald Trump.
6) So we have two different sets of kooks with two different backward-looking la-la-land visions, both utterly destructive of Britain's interests. We are in Alien vs Predator territory.
7) If anything is to be salvaged from this disaster, it is by giving a voice to as many different interests as possible in the coming negotiations. That can only be achieved through a hung Parliament. Whatever comes next will at least be something that the entire country can feel some allegiance to.
8) The result is still likely to be pretty disastrous (and we'll still probably get car crash Brexit). But Britain can start to rebuild out of that forced consensus instead of wasting many years seeking to implement an impossible reactionary phantasm.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
If you take the sale value for a house and lot, and then deduct the insurance rebuild cost for the house, you get in effect what the lot is worth. If the house burned to the ground, you could theorectically sell the lot to someone that could then rebuild the house and lot to the original state for the rebuild cost. This would suggest "gardens" could work out being considerably more value by virtue of the permission to build the house that goes with them.
For example the last house I had in the UK I sold for 320K, and at that time the insurance rebuild cost was about 90K for a largish 3 bedroom house in the west country. This implies that value of the "land: is around 230K, where as a 40/sqft price for the 1/16 acre plot would imply a land value of around 108k ( 43560 / 16 * 40)
welsh opinion poll out around 4pm and according to Roger Scully...
Prof Roger Scully Retweeted SharpendITV And it's an interesting one!
It's YouGov so it'll be terrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiibbbbbbllllleeeeee for the Tories...
Prof. Scully did describe it as "historic".
Zero libs?
Given recent trends it would be strange if the Tories were shown to be doing really well there still, so that makes sense. It was already a fight to hold onto the one they have.
Corbyn sounding very statesman like and parking his tanks on the Tory lawn - I must admit I'm surprised at how well Corbyn is doing - no doubt tomorrow he'll be taking TM to task on Grammar Schools !!
He's significantly improved as a speaker. No doubt about it.
He's going down very well up here in Scotland (despite SLAB's & Murray's best efforts) - I think he could well be about to crash the SCON party and push them back into 3rd place. Corbyn's man in Scotland - Neil Findlay - isn't even a member of Kezia's Shadow Cabinet.
With the SNP and now SLAB starting to consolidate - SCON, Ruth & TM's big gamble around IndyRef2 opposition could be about to bite them all in the ass !!
Following a reduction in the rate of CT the amount of CT increased by 21% in the last year. Some of that was from timing changes but the underlying increase was 12.5%.
It is painfully obvious that for most multinationals there is a wide degree of discretion about where to declare their profits. Not surprisingly they choose to declare a fair bit of it in low tax countries. Who'd have thought? Making the UK a lower tax country has increased the amount of profit and tax declared here. This may not be very fair but it is a fact. The figures were less clearcut but we saw a similar effect when there was a cut in the higher rate of IT.
So the next time Labour claim that their Manifesto is costed perhaps the might want to explain what services they plan to cut to fund the increase in CT. Clearly they think success needs to be punished but are they really willing to pay the price for that? How many schools are they prepared to underfund to punish the better off? How full do they want to make those schools by taxing private schools out of existence?
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
No. For every square foot of your garden you'd pay whatever the LVT rate was. Generally I think it's mooted at about 1%. So for every square foot of your garden you'd pay 40p (if and only if the value of your garden wasn't already counted in the 'land' proportion of the value of your house).
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
If mum and dad flip there home to my spouse, does that mean the state pays for all there social care under the tory social care policy?
Only if it were done a long time in advance. Otherwise it'd be "deliberate deprivation". At best the transaction would be reversed by a court, at worst they'd be prosecuted for fraud.
A woman in my great uncle's old care home did try doing it a long way in advance, and transferred her home to her daughter in law. Then her daughter in law evicted her.
We won't evict mum and dad.
But I'm told that this is very common practice in the leafy tory shires. So again the tax will fall on the middle class.
If they are still living there then under present rules the state will not pay a penny, and it won't matter how long ago they made the gift. They will be treated as if they still own it. I've no idea what would happen under the new proposals but I can't see why that would change.
Aged 60 transfer ownership of the house but retain a 20 year leasehold interest with 4 options to extend by 5 years.
You'd have to pay market rent though wouldn't you?
Not with a leasehold. Ground rent is a few hundred pounds a year.
That assumes a substantial premium though. The kids may as well buy the freehold outright in that case.
Who's paying who? (I'm not a tax adviser so genuinely interested if my idea doesn't work!)
Assuming you're talking about a capital asset (a long leasehold interest) then there's a deemed market value transfer for a transaction between connected parties so doesn't matter who pays what to whom. It gets muddier when you look at exchanges of part-shares of land interests, grants of new leases and so on, so even assuming MV is not necessarily correct in this case.
This is thinking about it in IHT/CGT terms though, it's not safe to assume that care cost assessments would follow the principles of either of those taxes.
Feel free to send me a DM (vanilla does that, I assume?) if you'd like a bit more detail on the tax side.
Thanks - it's just intellectual curiosity so wouldn't want to waste your time.
On who pays who my comment was Carolus seemed to miss the purpose - it's a non cash transfer of a freehold interest
Corbyn sounding very statesman like and parking his tanks on the Tory lawn - I must admit I'm surprised at how well Corbyn is doing - no doubt tomorrow he'll be taking TM to task on Grammar Schools !!
He's significantly improved as a speaker. No doubt about it.
He's going down very well up here in Scotland (despite SLAB's & Murray's best efforts) - I think he could well be about to crash the SCON party and push them back into 3rd place. Corbyn's man in Scotland - Neil Findlay - isn't even a member of Kezia's Shadow Cabinet.
With the SNP and now SLAB starting to consolidate - SCON, Ruth & TM's big gamble around IndyRef2 opposition could be about to bite them all in the ass !!
Not really. I think any increase in the number of unionist MPs will be used against the SNP.
welsh opinion poll out around 4pm and according to Roger Scully...
Prof Roger Scully Retweeted SharpendITV And it's an interesting one!
It's YouGov so it'll be terrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiibbbbbbllllleeeeee for the Tories...
Prof. Scully did describe it as "historic".
Zero libs?
Given recent trends it would be strange if the Tories were shown to be doing really well there still, so that makes sense. It was already a fight to hold onto the one they have.
No Conservative seats?
libs have held at least 1 seat in wales since 1880, so 0 libs would be historic indeed....
Mr. Rhubarb, sounds like Red Dwarf, when Kryten had two points to make. Technically, it was just one point, but it was so important he felt the need to say it twice.
@BBCVickiYoung: Businesses need tariff free access to European single market says Labour leader. No such thing as no deal. #GE2017 @BBCVickiYoung: "No deal is in fact a bad deal" says Corbyn #GE2017
So why did Corbyn lead all his merry men (and women) into the voting lobbies to support Mrs May`s decision to go ahead with Article 50, without any conditions at all?
Does he know what he is doing? Or is he our answer to Trump in the irresponsibility stakes?
Following a reduction in the rate of CT the amount of CT increased by 21% in the last year. Some of that was from timing changes but the underlying increase was 12.5%.
It is painfully obvious that for most multinationals there is a wide degree of discretion about where to declare their profits. Not surprisingly they choose to declare a fair bit of it in low tax countries. Who'd have thought? Making the UK a lower tax country has increased the amount of profit and tax declared here. This may not be very fair but it is a fact. The figures were less clearcut but we saw a similar effect when there was a cut in the higher rate of IT.
So the next time Labour claim that their Manifesto is costed perhaps the might want to explain what services they plan to cut to fund the increase in CT. Clearly they think success needs to be punished but are they really willing to pay the price for that? How many schools are they prepared to underfund to punish the better off? How full do they want to make those schools by taxing private schools out of existence?
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Why do you want a Hung Parliament? Soft Brexit? or No Brexit? Or just to hurt the Brexiteering Tories?
Genuine question.
1) No Brexit isn't an option. The people have spoken, the bastards. It has to be implemented. Hell mend them.
2) That means honouring the spirit of the decision as well as the letter. The vote was won on an impulse to keep out foreigners. Brexit must be implemented in such a way that allows the government to control freedom of movement. That means leaving the single market. A car crash beckons.
3) This is going to be an economic but more importantly social disaster for Britain. The country is becoming inward-looking and irrelevant, with little sense of social cohesion.
4) To date, Brexit has been a Conservative project throughout, driven by the hard right and with the government using inflammatory language to rally the newspapers. It is utterly disgusting.
5) I am equally appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, who is a dishonest and treacherous cretin. I find the idea of voting for him as incomprehensible as the idea of voting for Donald Trump.
6) So we have two different sets of kooks with two different backward-looking la-la-land visions, both utterly destructive of Britain's interests. We are in Alien vs Predator territory.
7) If anything is to be salvaged from this disaster, it is by giving a voice to as many different interests as possible in the coming negotiations. That can only be achieved through a hung Parliament. Whatever comes next will at least be something that the entire country can feel some allegiance to.
8) The result is still likely to be pretty disastrous (and we'll still probably get car crash Brexit). But Britain can start to rebuild out of that forced consensus instead of wasting many years seeking to implement an impossible reactionary phantasm.
Fin.
Seconded. A Hung Parliament means that we will need a consensus approach, and the interests of NI and Scotland will be listened to. It will unite rather than divide the country.
It all reminds me of Ted Heath who asked the question "Who rules Britain?" and got the answer "Not you, sunshine!"
Never ask a question unless you know the answer already...
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Why do you want a Hung Parliament? Soft Brexit? or No Brexit? Or just to hurt the Brexiteering Tories?
Genuine question.
1) No Brexit isn't an option. The people have spoken, the bastards. It has to be implemented. Hell mend them.
2) That means honouring the spirit of the decision as well as the letter. The vote was won on an impulse to keep out foreigners. Brexit must be implemented in such a way that allows the government to control freedom of movement. That means leaving the single market. A car crash beckons.
3) This is going to be an economic but more importantly social disaster for Britain. The country is becoming inward-looking and irrelevant, with little sense of social cohesion.
4) To date, Brexit has been a Conservative project throughout, driven by the hard right and with the government using inflammatory language to rally the newspapers. It is utterly disgusting.
5) I am equally appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, who is a dishonest and treacherous cretin. I find the idea of voting for him as incomprehensible as the idea of voting for Donald Trump.
6) So we have two different sets of kooks with two different backward-looking la-la-land visions, both utterly destructive of Britain's interests. We are in Alien vs Predator territory.
7) If anything is to be salvaged from this disaster, it is by giving a voice to as many different interests as possible in the coming negotiations. That can only be achieved through a hung Parliament. Whatever comes next will at least be something that the entire country can feel some allegiance to.
8) The result is still likely to be pretty disastrous (and we'll still probably get car crash Brexit). But Britain can start to rebuild out of that forced consensus instead of wasting many years seeking to implement an impossible reactionary phantasm.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
Thank you for that link - its made me feel a bit better!
Sounds like most places which have this LVT don't set it anywhere near close to 100% so I don't think Labour, especially a Labour minority government could do that. Not in the least as it would be a fortune for everyone - homeowners and renters!
Also in the other countries where they have it, it's not applied to everyone either, so perhaps that would be the case here.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
No. For every square foot of your garden you'd pay whatever the LVT rate was. Generally I think it's mooted at about 1%. So for every square foot of your garden you'd pay 40p (if and only if the value of your garden wasn't already counted in the 'land' proportion of the value of your house).
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
It's a good way of forcing development. Would affect companies that have traditionally held large land banks without intending to develop them.
At 1%, the LVT on agricultural land would be in excess of typical market rents: interesting how that would be squared.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead.
It's down from consistently high 40s to consistently low 40s. Now it's true Corbyn has also picked up at the expense of UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems. But, looking at the share, it simply isn't true that May has been serenely sailing along while Labour hoovers up the rest - not by a long chalk.
It wasn't really ever "consistently high 40s", the peak of the "calling an election" bounce was about 47%. It's now consistently around 44%, which isn't exactly "low 40s" either.
According to the polls Tory support is now pretty much the same as it was immediately before the election was called (44%).
I've always assumed that campaigns achieve nothing other than to give people reasons to vote the way they were always going to. In the Tory case at least, tat appears to be correct.
I'm inclined to believe that most of the Labour increase is real. In fact, I hope it is. I don't want a Corbyn government but I do believe that getting younger people in the habit of voting is good for democracy.
@BBCVickiYoung: Businesses need tariff free access to European single market says Labour leader. No such thing as no deal. #GE2017 @BBCVickiYoung: "No deal is in fact a bad deal" says Corbyn #GE2017
So why did Corbyn lead all his merry men (and women) into the voting lobbies to support Mrs May`s decision to go ahead with Article 50, without any conditions at all?
Does he know what he is doing? Or is he our answer to Trump in the irresponsibility stakes?
Trumpian. Say any reference to past comments is a smear, throw around any popular idea you can find.
The Hard Left certainly know the trick of saying whatever it takes to get into power, and then doing whatever they like afterwards.
Let's hope it's not enough for them to win though.
Is that better or worse than Team Theresa's approach of not even pretending to tell us what she'll do when she wins power, and asking for a mandate to do whatever she thinks is best for the next five years?
The vast majority of people that vote are not exercised by politics generally. They want something for the next five years. Work out what they want and you have your result. It's blindingly obvious what the country wants for the next five years.
Not blindingly obvious to me. They want a Tory government, but not a comfortable one?
They want lots of free things and they want someone else to pay for them.
Why do you want a Hung Parliament? Soft Brexit? or No Brexit? Or just to hurt the Brexiteering Tories?
Genuine question.
1) No Brexit isn't an option. The people have spoken, the bastards. It has to be implemented. Hell mend them.
2) That means honouring the spirit of the decision as well as the letter. The vote was won on an impulse to keep out foreigners. Brexit must be implemented in such a way that allows the government to control freedom of movement. That means leaving the single market. A car crash beckons.
3) This is going to be an economic but more importantly social disaster for Britain. The country is becoming inward-looking and irrelevant, with little sense of social cohesion.
4) To date, Brexit has been a Conservative project throughout, driven by the hard right and with the government using inflammatory language to rally the newspapers. It is utterly disgusting.
5) I am equally appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, who is a dishonest and treacherous cretin. I find the idea of voting for him as incomprehensible as the idea of voting for Donald Trump.
6) So we have two different sets of kooks with two different backward-looking la-la-land visions, both utterly destructive of Britain's interests. We are in Alien vs Predator territory.
7) If anything is to be salvaged from this disaster, it is by giving a voice to as many different interests as possible in the coming negotiations. That can only be achieved through a hung Parliament. Whatever comes next will at least be something that the entire country can feel some allegiance to.
8) The result is still likely to be pretty disastrous (and we'll still probably get car crash Brexit). But Britain can start to rebuild out of that forced consensus instead of wasting many years seeking to implement an impossible reactionary phantasm.
Fin.
Seconded. A Hung Parliament means that we will need a consensus approach, and the interests of NI and Scotland will be listened to. It will unite rather than divide the country.
It all reminds me of Ted Heath who asked the question "Who rules Britain?" and got the answer "Not you, sunshine!"
Never ask a question unless you know the answer already...
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
Thank you for that link - its made me feel a bit better!
Sounds like most places which have this LVT don't set it anywhere near close to 100% so I don't think Labour, especially a Labour minority government could do that. Not in the least as it would be a fortune for everyone - homeowners and renters!
Also in the other countries where they have it, it's not applied to everyone either, so perhaps that would be the case here.
Well, it'd be nothing for renters one assumes because they don't have a stake in the value of the land, though I'm sure some of it would get passed on in the rent.
Clearly it wouldn't ever be set at anything like 100%. You'd only even need to set it at about 30% if you wanted to abolish literally every other tax *and* eliminate the deficit. 10% if you included house prices rather than just land.
Last desperate throw's of the SCON dice before they get caught in a SNP/SLAB pincer movement - not that that's ever happened to SCON before !!
I wonder if Tessy will get a higher proportion of the UK vote & of mps than the SNP get in Scotland? If neither, there won't be a fig leaf large enough to hide her 'no mandate for an indy ref' bollocks.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
All those IRA attack vids only increase his popularity. The punters like Jezza more as they see more of him.
What sort of fucked up country do we live in if exposing the leader of the opposition as a terrorist sympathiser makes him MORE POPULAR?
I am lost for words. And not a little scared
Haven't you got it yet? If someone impartial tells me Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser a whole set of psychological processes are triggered off that make me initially highly suspicious. It is then the devil of a job to shift the notion. The dog has been given a bad name and probably hung as far as my brain goes. When somebody I don't trust, don't like and with an ulterior motive tells me he is a terrorist sympathiser my initial reaction is to be suspicious. I might still be won over, but the slightest chink in the story and I realise I am being had and come round to sympathise with Corbyn. And there is your Labour surge explained.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
No. For every square foot of your garden you'd pay whatever the LVT rate was. Generally I think it's mooted at about 1%. So for every square foot of your garden you'd pay 40p (if and only if the value of your garden wasn't already counted in the 'land' proportion of the value of your house).
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
It's a good way of forcing development. Would affect companies that have traditionally held large land banks without intending to develop them.
At 1%, the LVT on agricultural land would be in excess of typical market rents: interesting how that would be squared.
What does it do to supermarkets and utilities companies with massive land holdings ? Force up food and utility prices I assume ?
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
No. For every square foot of your garden you'd pay whatever the LVT rate was. Generally I think it's mooted at about 1%. So for every square foot of your garden you'd pay 40p (if and only if the value of your garden wasn't already counted in the 'land' proportion of the value of your house).
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
Thank you for telling me all this!
We don't have a garage, so no need to worry about that!
Labour rule out coalition. If minority will put forward QS and up to the rest to vote it down. Wow.
That implies we'll almost certainly be back at the polls for another bloody election in the Autumn or, at the latest, next Spring...
Think of the effect on Brexit negotiations if we keep changing govts every six months.
Does someone, somewhere, have a cunning plan?
Yep - Keep calm and vote Tezza - For better or worse she's still the only show in town...
It will probably have to be LD this time. Not because I agree with their policies (whatever they are), but simply because May & Corbyn are two talentless fools as far as I am concerned. I guess I am protesting this time. I admit I am not a loyal voter and, over the years, have voted for all of the main three and the greens (once). UKIP / BNP / etc I regard as the political sewer.
It is a wasted vote in a constituency with a 13,000 tory majority, but it is the LDs or an independent or the greens.
Mr. 66, that does raise an interesting question of whether it's a rise in the polling (ie people really are saying they'd vote Corbyn) or a rise in genuine, probable voting intention. In other words, people may be saying Corbyn, because they want free unicorns, but they won't actually end up voting.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
The polls are beginning to be consistent around a Tory share of 44%. That is enough for a comfortable majority.
They really aren't. The Tory lead is collapsing, and the collapse is ongoing. If the trend continues, and it has continued now for two weeks, TMay will lose her majority.
Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead. Look at the share not the lead.
It's down from consistently high 40s to consistently low 40s. Now it's true Corbyn has also picked up at the expense of UKIP, Greens and Lib Dems. But, looking at the share, it simply isn't true that May has been serenely sailing along while Labour hoovers up the rest - not by a long chalk.
It wasn't really ever "consistently high 40s", the peak of the "calling an election" bounce was about 47%. It's now consistently around 44%, which isn't exactly "low 40s" either.
According to the polls Tory support is now pretty much the same as it was immediately before the election was called (44%).
I've always assumed that campaigns achieve nothing other than to give people reasons to vote the way they were always going to. In the Tory case at least, tat appears to be correct.
I'm inclined to believe that most of the Labour increase is real. In fact, I hope it is. I don't want a Corbyn government but I do believe that getting younger people in the habit of voting is good for democracy.
WillS
You and Bunco 'Your Man on the Spot' would get on well, signing off on every bloody post!
Following a reduction in the rate of CT the amount of CT increased by 21% in the last year. Some of that was from timing changes but the underlying increase was 12.5%.
It is painfully obvious that for most multinationals there is a wide degree of discretion about where to declare their profits. Not surprisingly they choose to declare a fair bit of it in low tax countries. Who'd have thought? Making the UK a lower tax country has increased the amount of profit and tax declared here. This may not be very fair but it is a fact. The figures were less clearcut but we saw a similar effect when there was a cut in the higher rate of IT.
So the next time Labour claim that their Manifesto is costed perhaps the might want to explain what services they plan to cut to fund the increase in CT. Clearly they think success needs to be punished but are they really willing to pay the price for that? How many schools are they prepared to underfund to punish the better off? How full do they want to make those schools by taxing private schools out of existence?
It's not at all clear that the increase in CT take is caused by the rate cut and that it doesn't cannibalise other tax take though. For example, tax relief for investment in plant and machinery has been decreasing - that has a positive impact, which would be greater in the absence of rate cuts. The lower CT rates have encouraged more businesses to incorporate which increases CT receipts but decreases income tax receipts (Hammond bemoaned that fact in the last Autumn statement and budget). Some other anti-avoidance and interest restriction rules are bringing in more tax.
I don't have exhaustive data on this - nobody does - and it's possible that the total take across all taxes could have increased as a result of CT rate cuts. But there are plenty of good reasons to doubt that that is in fact the case, and limited evidence from elsewhere in the world to predict that it would be the case.
@bobajobPB So would a LVT tax just look at the value of a garden or the property as a whole? I am pretty worried about this.
It would most probably look at the value of the land on which the property sits, part of which is related to the fact that planning consent exists for the house, but not at the value of the house actually built.
Gardens are (best guess I can find) worth on average about £40 a square foot, so not a huge addition to the value of the house - and indeed may be double counting since the price you quote for buying the house includes buying the garden with it.
The main objective would be to reverse the current stupid situation where you pay more tax if you build a house than you pay if you sit on a planning permission and wait for prices to go up. Personally I think the quick win is just to apply business rates to plan-allocated land, and council tax to unbuilt permissions, but there we go.
Arguably there's an issue with bungalows, since they're an "inefficient" use of land and the land value / house price ratio will be different (if, hypothetically, the local council would be minded to grant permission to knock them down and build a house), but I doubt that's unfixable.
So for every square foot of your garden, you'd pay £40?
No. For every square foot of your garden you'd pay whatever the LVT rate was. Generally I think it's mooted at about 1%. So for every square foot of your garden you'd pay 40p (if and only if the value of your garden wasn't already counted in the 'land' proportion of the value of your house).
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
It's a good way of forcing development. Would affect companies that have traditionally held large land banks without intending to develop them.
At 1%, the LVT on agricultural land would be in excess of typical market rents: interesting how that would be squared.
What does it do to supermarkets and utilities companies with massive land holdings ? Force up food and utility prices I assume ?
Yes. And that's before we get to the little old ladies. Labour's just gone to the barricades to protect their right to pass their house as an inheritance. The follow-through consequences should be clear.
The Hard Left certainly know the trick of saying whatever it takes to get into power, and then doing whatever they like afterwards.
Let's hope it's not enough for them to win though.
Is that better or worse than Team Theresa's approach of not even pretending to tell us what she'll do when she wins power, and asking for a mandate to do whatever she thinks is best for the next five years?
Really? There was me thinking there was a manifesto.
Christ on a bike. The level of bedwetting on the basis of basically no evidence except for some highly suspect YouGov polling, which was highly suspect and mostly just plain wrong in the last election, is absurd and frankly painful to read. People really need to grow a pair and wait until the gold standard shows us there is a problem. If Tessie romps in with a majority of 80 or so, a lot of people here are going to look more than faintly ridiculous.
It's *still* campaigning on the wrong issues (the right issues are Brexit, the economy and security).
But not in that order. The right issues are:
the economy, the economy, the economy.
And then acknowledge, as Tezza began to today, that we can't let health and education fall back, funding-wise. Dear god compared with Jezza's spending Tezza could promise a free taxi for everyone going to their GP for a year and still come out up vs Lab's plans.
The overarching theme should have been Trust.
Who do you trust to deliver a growing economy while keeping the nation's finances under control? Who do you trust to negotiate with the European Union to deliver the best deal for Britain? Who do you trust to keep you and your family safe?
Those are the questions that the context of May vs Corbyn should have been set within. Frankly, we've had enough public service reform these last seven years. promising not to bugger about with structures would of itself be a vote winner as well as easily deliverable.
Trust is a difficult sell after the u-turns.
All should hinge on the economy. Where is the announcement today about low unemployment? They should hammer on this until people recall what a liability Lab is in office economically.
Jesus. I was hoping for double digits. The polls are beginning to herd around a 5-8 point lead? Somewhere between Hung Parliament and 50 seat majority.
The pain is going to last until next Thursday evening at 10pm.
All those IRA attack vids only increase his popularity. The punters like Jezza more as they see more of him.
What sort of fucked up country do we live in if exposing the leader of the opposition as a terrorist sympathiser makes him MORE POPULAR?
I am lost for words. And not a little scared
Haven't you got it yet? If someone impartial tells me Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser a whole set of psychological processes are triggered off that make me initially highly suspicious. It is then the devil of a job to shift the notion. The dog has been given a bad name and probably hung as far as my brain goes. When somebody I don't trust, don't like and with an ulterior motive tells me he is a terrorist sympathiser my initial reaction is to be suspicious. I might still be won over, but the slightest chink in the story and I realise I am being had and come round to sympathise with Corbyn. And there is your Labour surge explained.
It's boy who cried wolf. There has been so much fake news that people think real news is fake news, especially when it sounds like it can't possibly be true. Come on. AS IF a man who supported the IRA and laid wreaths for PLO terrorists would be made Leader of the Labour Party not once, but twice. As if he'd appoint a man who called for armed insurrection agains the government and kneecapping of opponents as his shadow chancellor. I'm not falling for that. Look at them. They're harmless old men.
Clear as mud. It seems to me that the much vaunted contention on here that the 650 seat system unduly favours Labour was rubbish, as I suggested at the time, much to the chagrin of the PB Tories. FPP is inherently unfair – which party it favours blows in the psephological wind, as your post above illustrates perfectly.
I really don't see what you find so hard to understand. Voters in some traditional Labour-voting areas (especially Wales and the NE) get more than their fair share of MPs on the current boundaries. That is all there is to it. What could possibly be difficult to understand about that?
Comments
Oh I'm not suggesting she answered questions directly or revealed previously hidden depths of oratory, just that the edited transcript that has been circulated is highly misleading.
She gave typical politician answers and the interview was not worthy of making the news outside of the local rag in which it appeared.
Decided to back Con 375-399 at 4.5 on Ladbrokes (previously backed 350-374 at 7, which is now down to about 3.25).
I think May will get a majority of around 60-80.
He seems to do very well in most formats. The debate, the one to one, the set piece.
I massively underestimated him.
Although it may be some years before I have the stomach to read it the way things are going....
People keep saying a week to go and the Tories can turn it round but I suspect most postal ballots have already gone back. The dye is probably cast.
But God only knows about Wales.
Drummed oot the TRuthy fan club fur that.
2) That means honouring the spirit of the decision as well as the letter. The vote was won on an impulse to keep out foreigners. Brexit must be implemented in such a way that allows the government to control freedom of movement. That means leaving the single market. A car crash beckons.
3) This is going to be an economic but more importantly social disaster for Britain. The country is becoming inward-looking and irrelevant, with little sense of social cohesion.
4) To date, Brexit has been a Conservative project throughout, driven by the hard right and with the government using inflammatory language to rally the newspapers. It is utterly disgusting.
5) I am equally appalled by Jeremy Corbyn, who is a dishonest and treacherous cretin. I find the idea of voting for him as incomprehensible as the idea of voting for Donald Trump.
6) So we have two different sets of kooks with two different backward-looking la-la-land visions, both utterly destructive of Britain's interests. We are in Alien vs Predator territory.
7) If anything is to be salvaged from this disaster, it is by giving a voice to as many different interests as possible in the coming negotiations. That can only be achieved through a hung Parliament. Whatever comes next will at least be something that the entire country can feel some allegiance to.
8) The result is still likely to be pretty disastrous (and we'll still probably get car crash Brexit). But Britain can start to rebuild out of that forced consensus instead of wasting many years seeking to implement an impossible reactionary phantasm.
Fin.
Read this:
https://www.ft.com/content/392c33a6-211f-11e3-8aff-00144feab7de
For example the last house I had in the UK I sold for 320K, and at that time the insurance rebuild cost was about 90K for a largish 3 bedroom house in the west country. This implies that value of the "land: is around 230K, where as a 40/sqft price for the 1/16 acre plot would imply a land value of around 108k ( 43560 / 16 * 40)
The Hard Left certainly know the trick of saying whatever it takes to get into power, and then doing whatever they like afterwards.
Let's hope it's not enough for them to win though.
With the SNP and now SLAB starting to consolidate - SCON, Ruth & TM's big gamble around IndyRef2 opposition could be about to bite them all in the ass !!
Following a reduction in the rate of CT the amount of CT increased by 21% in the last year. Some of that was from timing changes but the underlying increase was 12.5%.
It is painfully obvious that for most multinationals there is a wide degree of discretion about where to declare their profits. Not surprisingly they choose to declare a fair bit of it in low tax countries. Who'd have thought? Making the UK a lower tax country has increased the amount of profit and tax declared here. This may not be very fair but it is a fact. The figures were less clearcut but we saw a similar effect when there was a cut in the higher rate of IT.
So the next time Labour claim that their Manifesto is costed perhaps the might want to explain what services they plan to cut to fund the increase in CT. Clearly they think success needs to be punished but are they really willing to pay the price for that? How many schools are they prepared to underfund to punish the better off? How full do they want to make those schools by taxing private schools out of existence?
My best estimate based on the 1% rule and taking a mid-point of the 33-50% range for land vs house prices, LVT would cost just over £1k for every £250k of house price. Since house prices include gardens already I'm not sure we need to obsess about it.
Just don't apply for planning permission to turn your detached double garage into a small block of flats if you're not intending to go through with it.
On who pays who my comment was Carolus seemed to miss the purpose - it's a non cash transfer of a freehold interest
Does someone, somewhere, have a cunning plan?
As explained below, I think we're heading for disaster come what may. It's what comes next I'm concerned about.
Does he know what he is doing? Or is he our answer to Trump in the irresponsibility stakes?
2. Yes.
It all reminds me of Ted Heath who asked the question "Who rules Britain?" and got the answer "Not you, sunshine!"
Never ask a question unless you know the answer already...
Mike - Can we have that post as a thread header?
Sounds like most places which have this LVT don't set it anywhere near close to 100% so I don't think Labour, especially a Labour minority government could do that. Not in the least as it would be a fortune for everyone - homeowners and renters!
Also in the other countries where they have it, it's not applied to everyone either, so perhaps that would be the case here.
At 1%, the LVT on agricultural land would be in excess of typical market rents: interesting how that would be squared.
I've always assumed that campaigns achieve nothing other than to give people reasons to vote the way they were always going to. In the Tory case at least, tat appears to be correct.
I'm inclined to believe that most of the Labour increase is real. In fact, I hope it is. I don't want a Corbyn government but I do believe that getting younger people in the habit of voting is good for democracy.
WillS
Clearly it wouldn't ever be set at anything like 100%. You'd only even need to set it at about 30% if you wanted to abolish literally every other tax *and* eliminate the deficit. 10% if you included house prices rather than just land.
About 1% is the most likely scenario.
We don't have a garage, so no need to worry about that!
WillS
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/870280667808006145
It is a wasted vote in a constituency with a 13,000 tory majority, but it is the LDs or an independent or the greens.
I don't have exhaustive data on this - nobody does - and it's possible that the total take across all taxes could have increased as a result of CT rate cuts. But there are plenty of good reasons to doubt that that is in fact the case, and limited evidence from elsewhere in the world to predict that it would be the case.
Really? There was me thinking there was a manifesto.
All should hinge on the economy. Where is the announcement today about low unemployment? They should hammer on this until people recall what a liability Lab is in office economically.
Kim Philby eat your heart out.
*unwitting dupes of course!
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/870253645652258816
Morris Dancer
Not a good look with the over 35s