Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.
(Hear me out.)
If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.
Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.
I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.
I think that's a possibility.
May's decision to exempt Scotland from WFA restrictions was idiotically dangerous.
It really was an encouragement to regional demands
Theresa desperate to get Indyref fired up again. Rub the uppity Scots noses in the dirt yet again. What a sordid lot these Tories are.
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
So everyone who works hard should get the taxpayer to provide them with free housing in a multi million pound block in Kensington with £15k a year service charges.
What would be wrong with a house with a garden in outer London - which is a much more suitable environment for young kids than a block of flats. It's the choice most working Londoners have to make as they are priced out of zones 1 to 3.
There are right and proper temporary measures - but long term it perhaps isn't a good use of taxpayers money. You don't have to live in Kensington - sorry!
Nah, it's more the case that people with ways of cash shouldn't be able to socially cleanse their areas and make then inaccessible to those who don't have 'wealth'. Shoving victims off to new areas, new schools, new localities and services just because you don't want to annoy rich people isn't the way forward. They live in Kensington, it's their home, it's not like they set fire to the block in the hope of an upgrade.
Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.
May and Corbyn were successful by appearing to straddle both camps. May then screwed it up with the most rapid damascene conversion since St Paul.
The country is divided and no one likes to see a divided country. I don't think there's any doubt that May becomming the brexiest Brexiteer in the land was what did it for the Tories. Corbyn is still the Corbyn his own party were laughing at just a few months ago and she couldn't beat him.
Johnson Davis Patel are dead in the water. It can only be Hammond. How are the mighty fallen.....
I think I agree with this. She wanted to deliver Hard Brexit (yes, I know) and that simply ignored a large part of the electorate. She could say: I will govern for rich and poor and help the poor, but she found herself unable to say: I will seek a Brexit that we can all support.
Now, of course, there may not be a Brexit that we can all support, but it's what she should have said and tried to achieve.
Yes exactly. Really, joining the EEA on a fixed term basis, due to expire in the next 7 years for example, and perhaps a Customs arrangement lasting 4 years, would have given the country the time it needs to decide how to move forward (do we stay in single market and accept FoM or do we now decide to go it alone completely).
She was misled by her cheerleaders in the press - it gave a false sense of security that the country was thinking along the same lines as the Mail and the Sun. In reality people clearly do not yet know what sort of Brexit they want for the future, so they declined to commit to one in the election.
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Jezza is waiting for John McDonnell to text him the tower block bill as a fraction of the MayDUP bung.
That's the problem Theresa May has created. £1 billion will now be the threshold for money that can be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa. £24 billion too (see Jack W on the total cost).
On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.
Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.
Christ.
The theory of Corbyn is one thing.
When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.
When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?
The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.
When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p
Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
Though I can understand your mentality - the reality is the wealthy/childless middle classes are the only net tax contributors in this country.
On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.
Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.
Christ.
The theory of Corbyn is one thing.
When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.
When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?
The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.
When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p
Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
May and the Tories were the ones who told us that.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
So everyone who works hard should get the taxpayer to provide them with free housing in a multi million pound block in Kensington with £15k a year service charges.
What would be wrong with a house with a garden in outer London - which is a much more suitable environment for young kids than a block of flats. It's the choice most working Londoners have to make as they are priced out of zones 1 to 3.
There are right and proper temporary measures - but long term it perhaps isn't a good use of taxpayers money. You don't have to live in Kensington - sorry!
Nah, it's more the case that people with ways of cash shouldn't be able to socially cleanse their areas and make then inaccessible to those who don't have 'wealth'. Shoving victims off to new areas, new schools, new localities and services just because you don't want to annoy rich people isn't the way forward. They live in Kensington, it's their home, it's not like they set fire to the block in the hope of an upgrade.
The vast majority of people not in public housing need to choose where they live based on costs. What makes people in public housing special?
It's not their home. It's a home provided by other taxpayers, the vast majority of whom have no chance whatsoever of living somewhere as expensive as Kensington.
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
Wow... Someone called in to say that? Amazing.
Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.
You seem to have forgotten that by the next election, the UK will have already Left the EU.
LMAO
Brexit is the new Corn Laws.
No. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy is the new Corn Laws.
Protect the farmers from cheap imports and let the poor pay more for their basic foodstuffs.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
All good questions. I have no idea Morris. I'm angry today and in full knee jerk mode and snobby arse holes defending their right to untrammeled enjoyment of Tower blocks with service charges the same as a years salary on minimum wage doesn't sit well. The entire monetised system we live by is both ludicrous and actively harmful. Take on those with net wealth of over 10 million, say. Or don't. It's all disgusting and messy and very far removed from the reality of existence to 99% of the world, and we defend that imbalance as if it were the will of God. Idiocy.
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Jezza is waiting for John McDonnell to text him the tower block bill as a fraction of the MayDUP bung.
That's the problem Theresa May has created. £1 billion will now be the threshold for money that can be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa. £24 billion too (see Jack W on the total cost).
Yes, some on here have made the point that £1bil in reality is not actually that much in the grand scheme of things, and they have a point. Yet it is a great big headline number that looks huge - no one is going to sit down and work it out as a percentage over an X year period per person - they will see the headline saying £1,000,000,000 'bung' to the DUP, and they will not like it.
To paraphrase the AV referendum campaign: We need a new maternity ward, not a bung to the DUP.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.
You seem to have forgotten that by the next election, the UK will have already Left the EU.
Only a fool wouldn't see how Brexit is diminishing us as a country whatever side of the divide you're on.
Fox and Davis yesterday looked like goldfish that had just leapt out of their bowls. This is going to go on for years. There's no possibility that those involved in this one sided mud wrestling are going to enhance their reputations and there's every chance that they'll drag those who put them there (Johnson Leadom Patel) down with them.
I'm afraid the next leader of all main parties will need clean hands. On the Tory side of the list above only Hammond and Davidson (a ridiculous entry for obvious reasons) fit the bill.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Corbyn and McDonnell were proposing an extra £50bn of spending *every year*. And that was just on the stuff they admitted to in the manifesto.
Magic money tree means pretending there's a bottomless pit of public money that can be spent 'for free', not committing existing public funds within the envelope of an overall credible fiscal plan.
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
Wow... Someone called in to say that? Amazing.
Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.
Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?
Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Well quite. The idea that Labour is anything other than delighted is bizarre. The longer May stays the happier they will be.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
Mr. Woolie, taxation is like Middle Eastern dictators. Just because it's stupid or feels very bad doesn't mean it can't be made much, much worse.
We live in shit but we don't want to risk living in elephant shit? It's not just taxation. It's the entire system. It's existence we are getting horribly wrong. And deep down we all know it,
It is a measure of how utterly diminished May is that her unnecessary election campaign was convincingly taken apart this morning on R4 by..... Grant Shapps.
To be fair to Grant Shapps, he does know how to run a Tory majority winning general election campaign, unlike Mrs May.
He does seem to be another one of May's unnecessary enemies, now coming back to haunt her.
It seems she didn't like nearly all of the Cameroons. Osborne is one thing, but to make enemies of so many of them was a bad idea.
The BBC docudrama the other night showed the capture of Gavin Williamson by the May team... he is seen making it a condition of his joining that "he" is got rid of (or words to that effect). Do we know who "he" is? Osborne? Gove? Some minion in the whips office? Timothy, but May didn't deliver at the time? Some other sacking that seemed puzzling at the time?
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
Wow... Someone called in to say that? Amazing.
Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
That she might think it - I guess I can believe. But that you would call into a public radio programme is absolutely stunning.
How out of touch can you be? Her new neighbors won't be offering her a cup of tea any time soon.... If the interview goes viral, she could become the new Martin Shrkeli if she's not careful.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.
The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
I wish the media would give Scottish politics coverage proportionate to its share of the UK population.
Davis should not have made his statement about getting a motion of consent - they can just insert a clause in the Great Repeal Bill to give it effect notwithstanding the Scotland Acts.
Why grant a hostage to fortune?
Davis isn't stupid. Given the arithmetic in the Scottish Parliament, I presume this is a trap. Westminster will offer Holyrood greater powers post Brexit.
Either Nicola votes it down, in which case she looks like she isn't standing up for Scotland and is voting against further devolution, or she supports it in which case she's just collaborated (as they'd see it) with the Tories.
It is a measure of how utterly diminished May is that her unnecessary election campaign was convincingly taken apart this morning on R4 by..... Grant Shapps.
To be fair to Grant Shapps, he does know how to run a Tory majority winning general election campaign, unlike Mrs May.
He does seem to be another one of May's unnecessary enemies, now coming back to haunt her.
It seems she didn't like nearly all of the Cameroons. Osborne is one thing, but to make enemies of so many of them was a bad idea.
The BBC docudrama the other night showed the capture of Gavin Williamson by the May team... he is seen making it a condition of his joining that "he" is got rid of (or words to that effect). Do we know who "he" is? Osborne? Gove? Some minion in the whips office? Timothy, but May didn't deliver at the time? Some other sacking that seemed puzzling at the time?
I sort of got the impression from the editing that it was Nicky Morgan - as they cut to her in the next scene. But I could be wrong - it just seemed a subtle hint.
I don't think May needed an excuse to sack Osborne - and pre his knifing of Boris (Williamson signed up for May before that) Gove was surely a cert for the Cabinet and couldn't have been denied a role given he led the leave campaign.
Mr. Woolie, I think that's an exaggeration. There are serious problems with building regulations and, perhaps more so, their enforcement. But this isn't some horrid society of woe and doom.
The scandal will be fixed, and cladding removed. It'll cost time and money, but it will be done.
The idea it's ok to financially harm people who had nothing to do with this is not an idea I can support.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money. If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is. It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.
Wow... Someone called in to say that? Amazing.
Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
That she might think it - I guess I can believe. But that you would call into a public radio programme is absolutely stunning.
How out of touch can you be? Her new neighbors won't be offering her a cup of tea any time soon.... If the interview goes viral, she could become the new Martin Shrkeli if she's not careful.
It's turned me into Leon Trotsky, she's an anti miracle worker.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.
Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?
Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
Would the SNP really oppose any of those with Sturgeon at the helm? They are still portraying themselves as the true left wing party in Scotland. I think they would probably support most of the Lab manifesto.
Lib Dems could probably be persuaded to go for the crazier parts of the Lab manifesto in exchange for some hefty concessions elsewhere - PR and second EU ref probably the 2 priorities.
On topic: This is a rather odd market. It's really two separate probability spaces. The first one pertains to a quick defenestration of Theresa May. In that scenario, it would have to be a men-in-grey-suits job, and there are realistically only two candidates, Hammond and DD. However, DD is needed in his current role; it would be very hard for any other senior figure to pick up the detail of the Brexit negotiations in the way that he has. So I think in the early-defenestration scenario, Hammond rather than DD should be favourite, perhaps on the understanding that there'd be a full contest in late 2019.
If, on the other hand, Theresa May survives as leader until 2019, then a whole picture will be different. Rather than seeing the change of leadership as a damage-limitation exercise in a crisis - favouring Hammond as a safe pair of hands - attention will turn to wider electoral appeal and refreshing the party image and policies for the post-Brexit world. In that scenario, it is much more likely to be a proper full leadership contest, and I don't think either Hammond or DD would be particularly favourites. BoJo might well fancy his chances (doesn't he always?), but his stock has certainly fallen. Amber Rudd might be a serious contender, but is seriously hampered by her now-tiny majority (thanks for nothing, Theresa!). In a full contest in these circumstances, it seems to me quite likely that someone younger and less obvious at the moment might build up support, perhaps someone not currently in the cabinet (although to take over directly as PM you need at least some high-level experience).
A week or so ago, the first scenario looked likely, but Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm and I now think we are probably looking at a 2019 or 2020 contest. That makes this market very unpredictable, but overall DD looks too short.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.
The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
Mr. Woolie, I think that's an exaggeration. There are serious problems with building regulations and, perhaps more so, their enforcement. But this isn't some horrid society of woe and doom.
The scandal will be fixed, and cladding removed. It'll cost time and money, but it will be done.
The idea it's ok to financially harm people who had nothing to do with this is not an idea I can support.
Tbf Morris I'm not really just talking about tower blocks and cladding. It's become totemic of the whole system, and laid bare the inequalities in the way we arrange ourselves as humans. It is of course far too late to do it all differently, so I'm just left with a sense of sadness and anger at the wretched mess Homo Sapiens is. We are cock wombles and we know it.
I wish the media would give Scottish politics coverage proportionate to its share of the UK population.
Davis should not have made his statement about getting a motion of consent - they can just insert a clause in the Great Repeal Bill to give it effect notwithstanding the Scotland Acts.
Why grant a hostage to fortune?
Davis isn't stupid. Given the arithmetic in the Scottish Parliament, I presume this is a trap. Westminster will offer Holyrood greater powers post Brexit.
Either Nicola votes it down, in which case she looks like she isn't standing up for Scotland and is voting against further devolution, or she supports it in which case she's just collaborated (as they'd see it) with the Tories.
You are of course quite right. I have allowed the red mist that descends when Sturgeon speaks to cloud my judgement!
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.
The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
Doesn't make it wrong though,
It's amazing how average people love paying more taxes so the kids of mega wealthy can keep more of their inheritance.
A tax the vast majority don't pay but hate - yet they seem quite relaxed with paying 40 per cent tax on modest earnings that wouldn't even get you a mortgage on a one bed flat in Barking.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.
The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
Yes, it's definitely not going to be on the table again anytime soon. I supported the move on social care - it was a flawed approach but better than the current system. It hit the inheritees not the pensioners themselves. The desire to leave what we can to our children is understandable and innate, but the reality is that many parents spend 18+ years providing for and caring for their children - those children already have benefited enough.
The alternative to capitalism is available in Venezuela and North Korea. Capitalism can be ugly, and cruel, but it is orders of magnitude better than the alternative. The perfect system does not exist.
On topic: This is a rather odd market. It's really two separate probability spaces. The first one pertains to a quick defenestration of Theresa May. In that scenario, it would have to be a men-in-grey-suits job, and there are realistically only two candidates, Hammond and DD. However, DD is needed in his current role; it would be very hard for any other senior figure to pick up the detail of the Brexit negotiations in the way that he has. So I think in the early-defenestration scenario, Hammond rather than DD should be favourite, perhaps on the understanding that there'd be a full contest in late 2019.
If, on the other hand, Theresa May survives as leader until 2019, then a whole picture will be different. Rather than seeing the change of leadership as a damage-limitation exercise in a crisis - favouring Hammond as a safe pair of hands - attention will turn to wider electoral appeal and refreshing the party image and policies for the post-Brexit world. In that scenario, it is much more likely to be a proper full leadership contest, and I don't think either Hammond or DD would be particularly favourites. BoJo might well fancy his chances (doesn't he always?), but his stock has certainly fallen. Amber Rudd might be a serious contender, but is seriously hampered by her now-tiny majority (thanks for nothing, Theresa!). In a full contest in these circumstances, it seems to me quite likely that someone younger and less obvious at the moment might build up support, perhaps someone not currently in the cabinet (although to take over directly as PM you need at least some high-level experience).
A week or so ago, the first scenario looked likely, but Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm and I now think we are probably looking at a 2019 or 2020 contest. That makes this market very unpredictable, but overall DD looks too short.
Great Post.
There is the third scenario. An event between now and 2020 precipitating a contest. A major Brexit negotiation failure, May walking due to ill health or a failed Commons vote. Worth thinking what they might be and who would be a safe pair of hands.
But if she stay the course (yes please, fingers crossed!), the chances that we can predict the next leader are low. Who would have predicted John Major succeeding Thatcher after the 1987 GE?
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.
Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?
Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
Would the SNP really oppose any of those with Sturgeon at the helm? They are still portraying themselves as the true left wing party in Scotland. I think they would probably support most of the Lab manifesto.
Lib Dems could probably be persuaded to go for the crazier parts of the Lab manifesto in exchange for some hefty concessions elsewhere - PR and second EU ref probably the 2 priorities.
I don't think we would see afull coalition with either although it's possible. Can't see labour going for 2nd ref and PR was surely killed off by the AV vote? House of Lords reform I think could be the LD carrot.
The alternative to capitalism is available in Venezuela and North Korea. Capitalism can be ugly, and cruel, but it is orders of magnitude better than the alternative. The perfect system does not exist.
Maybe we should be investing energy in finding a better way? Technology stands the chance of setting us free. Both from poverty and this rock. North Korea isn't the only alternative. The whole capitalism is a bastard but it's our bastard shtick is getting old, it's time for something new, something better. I'm just a small woolie though and I don't have the answer. Just the question.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Indeed and as an MP's worth is now officially valued at £100,000,000 (£1,000,000,000 divided by 10) I'm sure in the spirit of free enterprise several Tories must be considering crossing the floor
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.
I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
Mr. Woolie, technology can offer opportunities, but we should also be wary of tech giants gaining too much power. Governments, at least, can be held to account, at least to an extent. If tech giants gain monopolies, that could put us in a difficult position.
It'd be nice if the mega-wealthy helped their own countries, not unlike Titus Salt setting up Saltaire.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
The DUP leadership have never killed anyone. Is it simply opposition to gay marriage that makes them extremists in your view? Do you apply the same standard to Labour Muslim politicians?
As for the money tree/public funds argument, I pointed out that it's about 0.02% of public spending. Labour's manifesto spend that many thousand times over. We spend eight times that amount every single year just by being members of the European Union.
It shows how far Labour's ambitions have fallen that they celebrate coming second in an election as a win. When people like Owen Smith line up to serve under a man they have previously described as being unfit to be Prime Minister, it shows their true cynicism.
I suspect May will stay until the Brexit deal has been agreed, then stand down. Davis chances will hinge upon how well the deal is perceived - and we've got another 18 months to see who else emerges as a potential leader. I'm not sure the Tories will want to experiment again with a 'safe pair of hands whose a bit dull' leader......
They just went for dull pair of hands this time
Which, given recent experience, they would be ill-advised to do again.....
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate. 2. Ditches swathes of manifesto 3. Agrees C&S with another party. 4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa 5. Defers Queen's Speech 6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election. 7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers 8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.
Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
Coming first in a contest is typically considered winning.
Mr. Woolie, technology can offer opportunities, but we should also be wary of tech giants gaining too much power. Governments, at least, can be held to account, at least to an extent. If tech giants gain monopolies, that could put us in a difficult position.
It'd be nice if the mega-wealthy helped their own countries, not unlike Titus Salt setting up Saltaire.
Well, yes. You need technology without the tech giants. We need to find a way to progress without corporatism.
On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.
Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.
Christ.
The theory of Corbyn is one thing.
When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.
When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?
The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.
When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p
Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
If it was "a risk free protest" why has Labour's vote increased to a 5 to 6 point lead in all the polls published since the GE?
The fact that the swing to Labour was higher the more Remain voters in a seat would indicate that for many it was about Brexit.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.
Planned Overseas Aid = Bad Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good
What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.
But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
Another magic money tree follower ?!?
Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.
But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.
Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
Coming first in a contest is typically considered winning.
I think everyone thinks about it from their own personal point of view. Although the Conservatives are in Govt I don't think any Conservatives think that was a 'win' and Labour clearly did much better than anyone, including themselves, expected so for them it is a 'win'.
That is true in so many walks of life.
Coming last in a race but breaking your personal best for instance.
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
I think you find that "bugger that" is specifically excluded from the Con/DUP deal except in cash terms for everyone outside of Ulster.
Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm
There was moderate (not thunderous, but far from muted or ironic) cheering when May got to her feet in the HoC yesterday - barring another disaster she's safe for the moment.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
Trouble is they only 'beat every other party' individually.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate. 2. Ditches swathes of manifesto 3. Agrees C&S with another party. 4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa 5. Defers Queen's Speech 6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election. 7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers 8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.
Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.
The party that won an election:
1. Came first in votes. 2. Came first in seats. 3. Takes the office of Prime Minister 4. Takes the office of Chancellor 5. Takes the office of Home Secretary 6. Takes the office of Foreign Secretary 7. Takes all the other cabinet seats. 8. Takes all the non-cabinet ministerial seats. 9. Has majority backing for all Queen speeches 10. Has majority backing for all budgets 11. Has majority for Brexit
A combination of ardent left-wingers and pro-Europeans are very animated at the moment because they thought May would have to resign and they now see their window of opportunity is slipping away from them. The briefing yesterday that Hammond would be PM and Davis would be the one that would legitimise him was a last ditch effort that slipped away in a few hours when Davis came out and pointed out what a good PM he thinks Theresa May is.
Theresa May now has a majority in parliament, will deliver Brexit and give us an extra two years of conservative governance. Unlike David Cameron's first term she will also not be dependent on left wingers.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
Nobody won.
It's like a county cricket match. Labour got two bowling points, the Tories 3 batting points in a drawn match. Ahead but no winner.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate. 2. Ditches swathes of manifesto 3. Agrees C&S with another party. 4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa 5. Defers Queen's Speech 6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election. 7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers 8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.
Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.
The party that won an election:
1. Came first in votes. 2. Came first in seats. 3. Takes the office of Prime Minister 4. Takes the office of Chancellor 5. Takes the office of Home Secretary 6. Takes the office of Foreign Secretary 7. Takes all the other cabinet seats. 8. Takes all the non-cabinet ministerial seats. 9. Has majority backing for all Queen speeches 10. Has majority backing for all budgets 11. Has majority for Brexit
A combination of ardent left-wingers and pro-Europeans are very animated at the moment because they thought May would have to resign and they now see their window of opportunity is slipping away from them. The briefing yesterday that Hammond would be PM and Davis would be the one that would legitimise him was a last ditch effort that slipped away in a few hours when Davis came out and pointed out what a good PM he thinks Theresa May is.
Theresa May now has a majority in parliament, will deliver Brexit and give us an extra two years of conservative governance. Unlike David Cameron's first term she will also not be dependent on left wingers.
Labour performed far better than expectations, the Conservatives performed far worse. But, that's not quite the same thing as winning or losing.
The Conservatives are like some cocky Premier League team that expected to beat a far inferior opponent ten nil, and finally eaked out a 4-3 win.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
Mr. T, isn't that increase due to the rising profit of the crown estates?
The media juxtaposition is very poor, although the reality seems quite easy to understand. If people want to.
Mr. Woolie, must admit, I think people are underestimating the dangers of technology. But there we are. *returns to etching out exciting new story on a block of limestone*
Across the pond - CBO has gone for 22m uninsured under Senate plan. But the key number I think is the estimated 15m losing insurance next year. Might just be an issue in the mid-terms.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
Fairness doesn't come into it.
Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
Trouble is they only 'beat every other party' individually.
Beating all other opponents individually wins you every sporting competition in the world (with one ludicrous exception - NCAA college (American) football).
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
Enjoy it while it lasts....As Mrs May and Ms Sturgeon have found out, Mr Gravity will catch up with you sooner or later....
You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.
You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
"My" Tories?
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
Risible response.
A party that "won" an election :
As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
Nobody won.
Did Labour beat the Tories or did the Tories beat Labour?
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
Fairness doesn't come into it.
Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
It would also totally freeze up the housing market. No one would move, but just keep their house and then rent out another one whilst renting the house they owned.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
Fairness doesn't come into it.
Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
Agree.
Although I was always amazed that getting rid of mortgage tax relief happened for the same reasons.
Frank GardnerVerified account @FrankRGardner UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"
Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.
(Hear me out.)
If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.
Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.
I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.
The government are paying a going rate of £100M a vote. That's a big incentive.
...even that's untrue. There will be hundreds of votes on which the DUP will support the Govt. The left and Mathematics are strangers to one another.
Oh.. so if the DUP support the govt 200 times then £5m per vote is a good rate?
See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.
If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
Fairness doesn't come into it.
Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
Agree.
Although I was always amazed that getting rid of mortgage tax relief happened for the same reasons.
Yes, there is no economic justification for the cgt exemption on principal private residences, but no Political Party that has hopes of being in power is going to touch the subject.
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
It really would be sweet electoral revenge if the far Left proposed a raid on property, that made the dementia tax look like pennies in a tin, and came a cropper as a result.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.
Planned Overseas Aid = Bad Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good
What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.
But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
Another magic money tree follower ?!?
Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.
But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.
Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.
Frank GardnerVerified account @FrankRGardner UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"
I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.
Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
It really would be sweet electoral revenge if the far Left proposed a raid on property, that made the dementia tax look like pennies in a tin, and came a cropper as a result.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
this is an appalling humiliation and there’s no escaping it.
Quite literally within hours of the Brexit vote, almost exactly a year ago, the FM had decided that IndyRef2 was essential for the well being of the nation.
There had to be legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament because, only by having the framework in place now, right now, this minute, could we be ready for lift off when the great day of decision came.
There was a press conference when the Bill came forward. There was an official photograph of the First Minister, shoes off, relaxing on the sofa at Bute House, just dashing off a letter to Theresa May demanding the right to hold a vote.
And this week? This week, not so much.
We already know what the First Minister is going to say and it won’t be “Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!”
See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.
If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
Interesting how righties always jump to the defence of an hereditary privileged institution that much of the world had the good sense to bin years ago.
Comments
She was misled by her cheerleaders in the press - it gave a false sense of security that the country was thinking along the same lines as the Mail and the Sun. In reality people clearly do not yet know what sort of Brexit they want for the future, so they declined to commit to one in the election.
That's the problem Theresa May has created. £1 billion will now be the threshold for money that can be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa. £24 billion too (see Jack W on the total cost).
When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.
When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?
The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.
When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p
Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?
Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
Soaking them won't end well.
That should end. They are about 50p over the counter !
And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
It's not their home. It's a home provided by other taxpayers, the vast majority of whom have no chance whatsoever of living somewhere as expensive as Kensington.
Amazing.
Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
No. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy is the new Corn Laws.
Protect the farmers from cheap imports and let the poor pay more for their basic foodstuffs.
Take on those with net wealth of over 10 million, say. Or don't. It's all disgusting and messy and very far removed from the reality of existence to 99% of the world, and we defend that imbalance as if it were the will of God. Idiocy.
To paraphrase the AV referendum campaign: We need a new maternity ward, not a bung to the DUP.
Expect to see some of these suggestions from the the 2015 election trotted out (26,000 nurses etc) http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32309311
Fox and Davis yesterday looked like goldfish that had just leapt out of their bowls. This is going to go on for years. There's no possibility that those involved in this one sided mud wrestling are going to enhance their reputations and there's every chance that they'll drag those who put them there (Johnson Leadom Patel) down with them.
I'm afraid the next leader of all main parties will need clean hands. On the Tory side of the list above only Hammond and Davidson (a ridiculous entry for obvious reasons) fit the bill.
Magic money tree means pretending there's a bottomless pit of public money that can be spent 'for free', not committing existing public funds within the envelope of an overall credible fiscal plan.
Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?
Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
It's not just taxation. It's the entire system. It's existence we are getting horribly wrong. And deep down we all know it,
But that you would call into a public radio programme is absolutely stunning.
How out of touch can you be? Her new neighbors won't be offering her a cup of tea any time soon....
If the interview goes viral, she could become the new Martin Shrkeli if she's not careful.
The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
Either Nicola votes it down, in which case she looks like she isn't standing up for Scotland and is voting against further devolution, or she supports it in which case she's just collaborated (as they'd see it) with the Tories.
I don't think May needed an excuse to sack Osborne - and pre his knifing of Boris (Williamson signed up for May before that) Gove was surely a cert for the Cabinet and couldn't have been denied a role given he led the leave campaign.
The scandal will be fixed, and cladding removed. It'll cost time and money, but it will be done.
The idea it's ok to financially harm people who had nothing to do with this is not an idea I can support.
Lib Dems could probably be persuaded to go for the crazier parts of the Lab manifesto in exchange for some hefty concessions elsewhere - PR and second EU ref probably the 2 priorities.
If, on the other hand, Theresa May survives as leader until 2019, then a whole picture will be different. Rather than seeing the change of leadership as a damage-limitation exercise in a crisis - favouring Hammond as a safe pair of hands - attention will turn to wider electoral appeal and refreshing the party image and policies for the post-Brexit world. In that scenario, it is much more likely to be a proper full leadership contest, and I don't think either Hammond or DD would be particularly favourites. BoJo might well fancy his chances (doesn't he always?), but his stock has certainly fallen. Amber Rudd might be a serious contender, but is seriously hampered by her now-tiny majority (thanks for nothing, Theresa!). In a full contest in these circumstances, it seems to me quite likely that someone younger and less obvious at the moment might build up support, perhaps someone not currently in the cabinet (although to take over directly as PM you need at least some high-level experience).
A week or so ago, the first scenario looked likely, but Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm and I now think we are probably looking at a 2019 or 2020 contest. That makes this market very unpredictable, but overall DD looks too short.
Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
It's amazing how average people love paying more taxes so the kids of mega wealthy can keep more of their inheritance.
A tax the vast majority don't pay but hate - yet they seem quite relaxed with paying 40 per cent tax on modest earnings that wouldn't even get you a mortgage on a one bed flat in Barking.
The alternative to capitalism is available in Venezuela and North Korea. Capitalism can be ugly, and cruel, but it is orders of magnitude better than the alternative. The perfect system does not exist.
There is the third scenario. An event between now and 2020 precipitating a contest. A major Brexit negotiation failure, May walking due to ill health or a failed Commons vote. Worth thinking what they might be and who would be a safe pair of hands.
But if she stay the course (yes please, fingers crossed!), the chances that we can predict the next leader are low. Who would have predicted John Major succeeding Thatcher after the 1987 GE?
Agree DD is too short.
Can't see labour going for 2nd ref and PR was surely killed off by the AV vote?
House of Lords reform I think could be the LD carrot.
The whole capitalism is a bastard but it's our bastard shtick is getting old, it's time for something new, something better. I'm just a small woolie though and I don't have the answer. Just the question.
I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
It'd be nice if the mega-wealthy helped their own countries, not unlike Titus Salt setting up Saltaire.
As for the money tree/public funds argument, I pointed out that it's about 0.02% of public spending. Labour's manifesto spend that many thousand times over. We spend eight times that amount every single year just by being members of the European Union.
It shows how far Labour's ambitions have fallen that they celebrate coming second in an election as a win. When people like Owen Smith line up to serve under a man they have previously described as being unfit to be Prime Minister, it shows their true cynicism.
A party that "won" an election :
1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate.
2. Ditches swathes of manifesto
3. Agrees C&S with another party.
4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa
5. Defers Queen's Speech
6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election.
7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers
8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.
Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.
The fact that the swing to Labour was higher the more Remain voters in a seat would indicate that for many it was about Brexit.
What a pair!
You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
That is true in so many walks of life.
Coming last in a race but breaking your personal best for instance.
1. Came first in votes.
2. Came first in seats.
3. Takes the office of Prime Minister
4. Takes the office of Chancellor
5. Takes the office of Home Secretary
6. Takes the office of Foreign Secretary
7. Takes all the other cabinet seats.
8. Takes all the non-cabinet ministerial seats.
9. Has majority backing for all Queen speeches
10. Has majority backing for all budgets
11. Has majority for Brexit
A combination of ardent left-wingers and pro-Europeans are very animated at the moment because they thought May would have to resign and they now see their window of opportunity is slipping away from them. The briefing yesterday that Hammond would be PM and Davis would be the one that would legitimise him was a last ditch effort that slipped away in a few hours when Davis came out and pointed out what a good PM he thinks Theresa May is.
Theresa May now has a majority in parliament, will deliver Brexit and give us an extra two years of conservative governance. Unlike David Cameron's first term she will also not be dependent on left wingers.
Still think it would be preferable for May to stay on until Spring 2019 and then hand over to a new face though.
It's like a county cricket match. Labour got two bowling points, the Tories 3 batting points in a drawn match. Ahead but no winner.
The Conservatives are like some cocky Premier League team that expected to beat a far inferior opponent ten nil, and finally eaked out a 4-3 win.
It is capitalism in action. The royals gracious contribute a large amount to the exchequer.
It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
The media juxtaposition is very poor, although the reality seems quite easy to understand. If people want to.
Mr. Woolie, must admit, I think people are underestimating the dangers of technology. But there we are. *returns to etching out exciting new story on a block of limestone*
But the key number I think is the estimated 15m losing insurance next year.
Might just be an issue in the mid-terms.
Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
Although I was always amazed that getting rid of mortgage tax relief happened for the same reasons.
UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"
Wow!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40406542
Tick Tock
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Go to bed.
Quite literally within hours of the Brexit vote, almost exactly a year ago, the FM had decided that IndyRef2 was essential for the well being of the nation.
There had to be legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament because, only by having the framework in place now, right now, this minute, could we be ready for lift off when the great day of decision came.
There was a press conference when the Bill came forward. There was an official photograph of the First Minister, shoes off, relaxing on the sofa at Bute House, just dashing off a letter to Theresa May demanding the right to hold a vote.
And this week? This week, not so much.
We already know what the First Minister is going to say and it won’t be “Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1197665/nicola-sturgeon-faces-unpleasant-task-of-shooting-indyref2-in-the-back-of-the-head-says-andrew-nicoll/