> So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
>
> Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
>
> And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
Of course she would. So would any senior Tory figure of the last 50 years.
In itself that wouldn't much matter, except that the Labour Party has also completely lost its marbles and its decency at the same time, so there's no broadly acceptable alternative. This is unprecedented in modern times. Previously one or other party has sometimes lost its way, but not both at the same time.
> > > > It does occur to me that TBP’s strategy of carpeting the nation in election leaflets might backfire in boosting remainer turnout.
> > >
> > > What do people think turnout will be? The highest for the European elections was 38.5% but I could see it going comfortably above 40%.
> >
> >
> >
> > Political journalists will clearly spend many hours trying to read the tea leaves whatever the result; the reality is that the Peterborough by-election could be more significant. If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
> >
> > Cue much pant-soiling in Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, County Durham, the South Wales Valleys and a number of other areas.
>
> ------------------------------
> And yet if it happens it just polarises things in the same way they are now. No deal leavers will shit themselves and say it shows of course we must no deal or all leavers will be punished. Remainers will say a fascist party has won on the back of racist hysteria and so we must revoke by whatever means necessary and never again risk leaving, they won't believe BP would win a GE even then, just ruin the Tories and cost Labour some seats, to be sure.
May will never win No Deal ERG hardliners or Remainers, what she has to win are 50 or so Labour MPs from Leave seats to add to the 280 the Deal got last time to get a small majority. The Brexit Party taking Peterborough from Labour following a Brexit Party surge in the European elections in the North and Midlands could be just the ticket
Don't forget she had Boris, JRM and others in reluctant support last time... Can't see them supporting next time.
> @HYUFD said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.) > > > > > > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead? > > > > > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas. > > > > > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier > > > > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today: > > > > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19 > > Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate
----------------------------------------- Doesn't that depend on whether after pausing and thinking there is a good answer afterwards? I've not listened to it so I don't know what his response was, but while spouting off something stupid is bad, pausing and thinking about it then still saying something stupid, or not saying anything at all, doesn't strike me as much of an improvement, so a pause doesn't necessarily mean anything good.
> > That’s a tasty court case to the ECHR for lots of lucky lawyers.
>
> >
>
> > And a lot of misery for people saving for their pensions.
>
>
>
> Plus the fact that the owners are French, German and Spanish should make for a very interesting meeting for Corbyn with the EU.
>
> I have no doubt that the EU will seek to protect their interests in any agreement with the UK to cover off the risks of a Corbyn government.
Maybe also a ploy to encourage the share prices to plummet with a view to picking them up on the cheap.
They don’t intend to pay any sort of market value, even if it goes down from now.
Imagine if land taxes are not based on market value but on whatever the government says it is. For Labour tax purposes, market values can go up.
A cheery thought for us all.
'all' being all landowners presumably?
No.
Anyone with a freehold property for starters.
Indirectly it will impact so many people, especially the poorest in society.
Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
You are missing the point.
I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
> Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997. > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share. > > You are missing the point. > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
> @Foxy said: > > @another_richard said: > > Here's some interesting economic data - in the twelve months to the end of March the cumulative number of working days lost to labour disputes was only 107 thousand - the lowest on record. > > > > By comparison every month from February 1991 back to May 1942 the cumulative twelve month total was over a million lost days - regularly over ten million lost days during the 1970s and 1980s. > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > Data on page 18 of the spreadsheet here: > > > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics > > > > I think the weakness of private sector unions is because the battles are won, as well as service industries harder to unionise. > > Equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, health and safety. These are all enforced by law, often EU law. There simply is less need to be in a union compared to when I was born.
Yet pay has stagnated for a decade and we are in an era of wealth concentration among the 1%, soaring directors pay etc.
I would have thought at least a few unions would start agitating for better pay.
> Here's some interesting economic data - in the twelve months to the end of March the cumulative number of working days lost to labour disputes was only 107 thousand - the lowest on record.
>
> By comparison every month from February 1991 back to May 1942 the cumulative twelve month total was over a million lost days - regularly over ten million lost days during the 1970s and 1980s.
>
> So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
I think the weakness of private sector unions is because the battles are won, as well as service industries harder to unionise.
Equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, health and safety. These are all enforced by law, often EU law. There simply is less need to be in a union compared to when I was born.
Usually, the complaint on the left is that we have very liberal labour markets with little job security. That would suggest either that there is a need for unions, or that left wing complaints are misplaced.
> > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
> > > >
> > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead?
> > >
> > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas.
> > >
> > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier
> >
> > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today:
> @Jonathan said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> @Foxy said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.) > > > > > > > > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead? > > > > > > > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas. > > > > > > > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier > > > > > > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19 > > > > Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate > > He paused, and couldn't think of any. An empty vessel.
It was an irrelevant question, if the Brexit Party win it will be because democracy has been betrayed and we are not Leaving the EU not because they did not mouth leftwing platitudes hard enough
> @Benpointer said: > > @kle4 said: > > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > > > > > > > > It does occur to me that TBP’s strategy of carpeting the nation in election leaflets might backfire in boosting remainer turnout. > > > > > > > > > > What do people think turnout will be? The highest for the European elections was 38.5% but I could see it going comfortably above 40%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Political journalists will clearly spend many hours trying to read the tea leaves whatever the result; the reality is that the Peterborough by-election could be more significant. If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.) > > > > > > > > Cue much pant-soiling in Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, County Durham, the South Wales Valleys and a number of other areas. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > And yet if it happens it just polarises things in the same way they are now. No deal leavers will shit themselves and say it shows of course we must no deal or all leavers will be punished. Remainers will say a fascist party has won on the back of racist hysteria and so we must revoke by whatever means necessary and never again risk leaving, they won't believe BP would win a GE even then, just ruin the Tories and cost Labour some seats, to be sure. > > > > > > May will never win No Deal ERG hardliners or Remainers, what she has to win are 50 or so Labour MPs from Leave seats to add to the 280 the Deal got last time to get a small majority. The Brexit Party taking Peterborough from Labour following a Brexit Party surge in the European elections in the North and Midlands could be just the ticket > > Don't forget she had Boris, JRM and others in reluctant support last time... Can't see them supporting next time.
----------------------------- Quite. They haven't gone the full sad sack Richard Drax route, but especially now BP is polling so well it seems pretty likely their 'this is absolutely horrible, but it might be the only Brexit we get' reasoning will not apply with another vote.
The benefit of them having done so is it severely undercuts the whines about the WA not being Brexit at all, just that it is a bad Brexit for many.
> @Benpointer said: > > @kle4 said: > > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > > > > > > > > It does occur to me that TBP’s strategy of carpeting the nation in election leaflets might backfire in boosting remainer turnout. > > > > > > > > > > What do people think turnout will be? The highest for the European elections was 38.5% but I could see it going comfortably above 40%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Political journalists will clearly spend many hours trying to read the tea leaves whatever the result; the reality is that the Peterborough by-election could be more significant. If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.) > > > > > > > > Cue much pant-soiling in Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, County Durham, the South Wales Valleys and a number of other areas. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > And yet if it happens it just polarises things in the same way they are now. No deal leavers will shit themselves and say it shows of course we must no deal or all leavers will be punished. Remainers will say a fascist party has won on the back of racist hysteria and so we must revoke by whatever means necessary and never again risk leaving, they won't believe BP would win a GE even then, just ruin the Tories and cost Labour some seats, to be sure. > > > > > > May will never win No Deal ERG hardliners or Remainers, what she has to win are 50 or so Labour MPs from Leave seats to add to the 280 the Deal got last time to get a small majority. The Brexit Party taking Peterborough from Labour following a Brexit Party surge in the European elections in the North and Midlands could be just the ticket > > Don't forget she had Boris, JRM and others in reluctant support last time... Can't see them supporting next time. Given the alternative remains the Commons preventing Brexit altogether I don't think that follows, provided she does not add a CU to the WA PD
> @Sean_F said: > > @another_richard said: > > > Here's some interesting economic data - in the twelve months to the end of March the cumulative number of working days lost to labour disputes was only 107 thousand - the lowest on record. > > > > > > By comparison every month from February 1991 back to May 1942 the cumulative twelve month total was over a million lost days - regularly over ten million lost days during the 1970s and 1980s. > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > Data on page 18 of the spreadsheet here: > > > > > > https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics > > > > > > > I think the weakness of private sector unions is because the battles are won, as well as service industries harder to unionise. > > > > Equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, health and safety. These are all enforced by law, often EU law. There simply is less need to be in a union compared to when I was born. > > Usually, the complaint on the left is that we have very liberal labour markets with little job security. That would suggest either that there is a need for unions, or that left wing complaints are misplaced.
That is certainly not true, particularly compared with previous generations.
> @The_Taxman said: > I don't think taxing assets like a family home is the way to go. How would a government go about taxing a house for starters? Would it force the owner to take out some sort of mortgage to obtain the cash? Many people under the age of 50 for instance maybe asset rich (Owning a home bit with a mortgage) but cash poor. > > In a similar vein Is it really fair to induce a wealth tax on someone's bank account if they have over a certain amount of money either? It does not feel right to me. > > I do think it is time to turn the spending taps on again to some extent but I question the validity of wealth taxes. To be honest I don't think increasing income tax works beyond a certain point as it creates disincentives or actually lowers the tax take beyond a certain point. > > It is a noble quest to make a society more equal but you can only push these things so far. In terms of a tax increase I would happily see would be capital gains tax, increased by the coalition and cut by the Conservatives. Capital gains tax would for instance hit second home owners or landlords but unless the rules were changed would not hit a family home.
We have a tax on fixed assets in Japan that you pay on land and the house on the land. IIRC it's 1.4% of the assessed value. It works fine. It's just one of the ongoing costs you take into account when you buy a place, like the cost of heating or repairs.
It helps avoid people hogging property they don't need for wealth storage like they do in Britain, and makes for very efficient land use. For example, it's really easy to find parking in Tokyo, because any bit of land that's temporarily vacant waiting for construction to start or whatever will get a car park on it.
> @Jonathan said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> @HYUFD said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > > @Black_Rook said: > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.) > > > > > > > > > > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead? > > > > > > > > > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas. > > > > > > > > > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier > > > > > > > > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today: > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19 > > > > > > Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate > > > > He paused, and couldn't think of any. An empty vessel. > > It was an irrelevant question, if the Brexit Party win it will be because democracy has been betrayed and we are not Leaving the EU not because they did not mouth leftwing platitudes hard enough >
---------------------- I'm confused. I thought the argument was he was a good candidate because he paused and thought about how to answer a question, but now the argument is that the question was irrelevant, in which case why is he a good candidate for pausing and thinking about an answer to an irrelevant question?
> Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> You are missing the point.
>
> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
> @HYUFD said: > > @Jonathan said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt >
> > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> >
> > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> >
> > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
>
> Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
That's a totally unprovable assertion without a doubt.
Why is it when partisans talk about their favourite past leaders the tone becomes akin to religious doctrine about what the divine would think of us now? I swear, when people start banging on about Thatcher it just puts me in mind of medieval armies facing off, each with priests telling them Jesus backs them against those evil doers on the other side.
> @Foxy said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
Certainly.
Just googling I come across this dockstrike a few weeks after the 1970 election
' A state of emergency was proclaimed yesterday by the Queen as the national dock strike brought complete disruption to the ports. Soon afterwards, the Government announced the setting up of a Court of Inquiry into the dispute. No final decision on its chairman has yet been made, but a strong candidate is Lord Pearson, who accepted a similar assignment during the seaman’s strike of 1966.
Mr Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, received both announcements with unconcealed disapproval. He questioned the wisdom of sending troops into the docks, and said the unions would be willing to give evidence to the court, “but without obligation.” From now on, however, the unions would continue to develop the “full strength of the strike.”
The proclamation was made at Buckingham Palace yesterday afternoon soon after the Queen’s return from Canada. It followed a meeting of the Privy Council over which she presided. Earlier in the day the Cabinet had held a two-hour meeting at which it decided to invoke the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 without delay. The brief 121-word statement was brought to the Commons by the Home Secretary, Mr Maudling, and handed to the Speaker, who read it out. Later Mr Maudling told a packed House that the powers “to secure the essentials of life to the community” would only be used if necessary. '
That is certainly not true, particularly compared with previous generations.
We have great protections in law.
It's rather sweet to see that you seem to think that the thuggish unions of the 60s and 70s were striking for equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, and health and safety.
> @HYUFD said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties. > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > I don't think taxing assets like a family home is the way to go. How would a government go about taxing a house for starters? Would it force the owner to take out some sort of mortgage to obtain the cash? Many people under the age of 50 for instance maybe asset rich (Owning a home bit with a mortgage) but cash poor. > > > > In a similar vein Is it really fair to induce a wealth tax on someone's bank account if they have over a certain amount of money either? It does not feel right to me. > > > > I do think it is time to turn the spending taps on again to some extent but I question the validity of wealth taxes. To be honest I don't think increasing income tax works beyond a certain point as it creates disincentives or actually lowers the tax take beyond a certain point. > > > > It is a noble quest to make a society more equal but you can only push these things so far. In terms of a tax increase I would happily see would be capital gains tax, increased by the coalition and cut by the Conservatives. Capital gains tax would for instance hit second home owners or landlords but unless the rules were changed would not hit a family home. > > We have a tax on fixed assets in Japan that you pay on land and the house on the land. IIRC it's 1.4% of the assessed value. It works fine. It's just one of the ongoing costs you take into account when you buy a place, like the cost of heating or repairs. > > It helps avoid people hogging property they don't need for wealth storage like they do in Britain, and makes for very efficient land use. For example, it's really easy to find parking in Tokyo, because any bit of land that's temporarily vacant waiting for construction to start or whatever will get a car park on it.
Thanks. Do you have the equivalent of council tax in Japan?
> @Benpointer said: > > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997. > > > > > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share. > > > > > > You are missing the point. > > > > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > > > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > > > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is. > > > > Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion. > > Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
> @williamglenn said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
> @kle4 said: > Why is it when partisans talk about their favourite past leaders the tone becomes akin to religious doctrine about what the divine would think of us now? I swear, when people start banging on about Thatcher it just puts me in mind of medieval armies facing off, each with priests telling them Jesus backs them against those evil doers on the other side.
But the side who won the battle were proven correct, weren't they?
Just googling I come across this dockstrike a few weeks after the 1970 election
' A state of emergency was proclaimed yesterday by the Queen as the national dock strike brought complete disruption to the ports. Soon afterwards, the Government announced the setting up of a Court of Inquiry into the dispute. No final decision on its chairman has yet been made, but a strong candidate is Lord Pearson, who accepted a similar assignment during the seaman’s strike of 1966.
Mr Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, received both announcements with unconcealed disapproval. He questioned the wisdom of sending troops into the docks, and said the unions would be willing to give evidence to the court, “but without obligation.” From now on, however, the unions would continue to develop the “full strength of the strike.”
The proclamation was made at Buckingham Palace yesterday afternoon soon after the Queen’s return from Canada. It followed a meeting of the Privy Council over which she presided. Earlier in the day the Cabinet had held a two-hour meeting at which it decided to invoke the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 without delay. The brief 121-word statement was brought to the Commons by the Home Secretary, Mr Maudling, and handed to the Speaker, who read it out. Later Mr Maudling told a packed House that the powers “to secure the essentials of life to the community” would only be used if necessary. '
It was just horrendous. Not only economically disastrous, but an absolute outrage in terms of civil liberties, with law-abiding citizens being intimidated and held to ransom in disputes which had nothing whatever to do with them. Anyone who didn't live through it won't understand just how awful it was - far, far worse than anything we see today.
> @ExiledInScotland said: > > @kle4 said: > > Why is it when partisans talk about their favourite past leaders the tone becomes akin to religious doctrine about what the divine would think of us now? I swear, when people start banging on about Thatcher it just puts me in mind of medieval armies facing off, each with priests telling them Jesus backs them against those evil doers on the other side. > > But the side who won the battle were proven correct, weren't they? ------------------------------------------ That's the spirit
> @Foxy said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties. > > > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd > > The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states? Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990.
In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'. Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum. He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.'
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them. > > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour. > > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP. > > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates....
> @HYUFD said: > In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
--------------------- Ah, so basically a decade and more after leaving office she no longer had useful insights then, only trite, silly slogans?
But who am I to argue with the untamed love people have for a political leader, however impressive in her day, to the point they feel the need to justify everything they do forevermore based on what she might have thought about it all? I look forward to arguments in the 2050s about what Mrs Thatcher would have thought about the invasion of the Xargon interplanetary force, or the harsh new policies of the machine overlords.
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them. > > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour. > > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP. > > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
That is why I said in her Eighties heyday.
After that she went down the rabbit hole, and turned on her own party.
> > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> >
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
>
> Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
Of course there will be a threshold. For a start, a third of the population will be exempt by virtue (!) of not owning any land or other significant assets.
I'd expect the threshold to exclude a good proportion of the remainder but as I said before, maybe we whould wait for that actual detailed proposals before we condemn them?
> @HYUFD said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties. > > > > > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd > > > > The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states? > Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990. > > In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.” > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10045061/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-Britain-to-leave-the-EU.html > > In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'. > Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum. > He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.' > > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html > > Thatcher was also a democrat and would be appalled the Leave vote has been ignored >
She opposed referendums as against parliamentary democracy.
> @another_richard said: > Now here's an idea - back in the 1970s and 1980s with all their strikes politicians frequently had to negotiate to bring crises to an end. > > And these negotiations usually involved compromises and concessions from both sides to reach an outcome all could reasonably accept. > > But our current generation of politicians have never needed to similarly negotiate. > > And the Brexit impasse with its increasing fanaticism and extreme views is a consequence.
Politics at anytime is a negotiation! I take your point about industrial disputes but any UK Government has several million employees to deal with and Government employees are amongst the most unionised. The Northern Ireland problems still exist and take negotiation. It is not as straight forward as first looks.
> @Foxy said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become. > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties. > > > > > > > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd > > > > > > The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states? > > Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990. > > > > In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.” > > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10045061/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-Britain-to-leave-the-EU.html > > > > In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'. > > Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum. > > He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.' > > > > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html > > > > Thatcher was also a democrat and would be appalled the Leave vote has been ignored > > > > She opposed referendums as against parliamentary democracy.
Thatcher was not a fan of referendums but she would certainly have expected the results of those held to be respected, just as the 1975 referendum she campaign in was. Like much of her generation she shifted from being pro Common Market then to firmly anti EU in her latter years
> > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > > >
> > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
> >
> > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
>
> Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
> @Tissue_Price said: > Two MEPs for ChangeUK might be a tad optimistic I fear. > > Young Mr Smithson knows a thing or two about expectation management
> > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> >
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
>
> Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value
The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
> @The_Taxman said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them. > > > > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour. > > > > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP. > > > > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment > > I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates.... >
I suspect she would still have voted Tory at the GE, though with reservations unless a Brexiteer was leader but in the European elections she would certainly have voted Brexit Party.
Thatcher also got on better with the likes of Frank Field than Michael Heseltine
'The Financial Times is reporting that Labour is planning to nationalise Britain’s energy networks at below market value, and would do so shortly after winning a general election.
A new paper by the opposition party said shareholders would be compensated, but not necessarily at market prices. Deductions would be made to take account of “asset stripping since privatisation”, state subsidies since the 1980s and pension fund deficits, according to the FT which said Corbyn will outline the plans on Thursday.'
That’s a tasty court case to the ECHR for lots of lucky lawyers.
And a lot of misery for people saving for their pensions.
How do you think our diplomatic influence will be impacted when all those nice sovereign funds have their assets swiped?
Would Corbyn and co even care about that?
Probably not
But I guess if they revoke the HRA they can ignore the ECHR as well
'The Financial Times is reporting that Labour is planning to nationalise Britain’s energy networks at below market value, and would do so shortly after winning a general election.
A new paper by the opposition party said shareholders would be compensated, but not necessarily at market prices. Deductions would be made to take account of “asset stripping since privatisation”, state subsidies since the 1980s and pension fund deficits, according to the FT which said Corbyn will outline the plans on Thursday.'
That’s a tasty court case to the ECHR for lots of lucky lawyers.
And a lot of misery for people saving for their pensions.
How do you think our diplomatic influence will be impacted when all those nice sovereign funds have their assets swiped?
Would Corbyn and co even care about that?
Probably not
But I guess if they revoke the HRA they can ignore the ECHR as well
Is revoking the Human Rights Act and opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights Labour policy? Really? I hadn’t heard that.
Change UK is chock full of what Alastair Meeks calls 'dull competence' - the sort of modern day 'officer class' of politician that we want doing things and that the arrival of the ghastly lower-middle class Brexit wave threatens to sweep away. I'm glad CHUK has shown once again that that is a total myth, and that all these people had going for them was a veneer of competence provided by big teams, plentiful finance, and media approval. Strip that away and these people are clueless.
It would - almost - be worth having Farage as PM to watch him enact his particular brand of “competence”. I suspect that we would be looking back at May’s Premiership as a golden age.
Sorry but I have to totally disagree. Not all PMs are of the Thatcher mould - poring over red boxes till 1am. Cameron just made announcements most of the time and flew by the seat of his pants. And he was fine as far as it goes. I'm neither expecting, nor hoping for PM Farage, but he's a relatively good communicator, and in terms of being 'up to it' I don't see that huge gulf. In terms of his legislative agenda that's a different debate.
Nothing in Farage’s past suggests any sort of competence at the actual mechanics of government. Quite the opposite. He is a good communicator. But he shines because so many other politicians are so bad at at it. And because he is prepared to say whatever will get him the applause and the approval.
I see him and I see the commodity broker he used to be. I have investigated a number of such people. Lying crooks the lot of them. Farage acts, talks and behaves like them and I am afraid when I see him in action I see just another example of the sorts of people I have so enjoyed investigating over the years. I realise that this is a very particular perspective. But there you are.
“Lying crooks the lot of them”
You’re being uncharacteristically unfair @Cyclefree
You’ve got two types of commodity brokers
(1) Lying crooks
(2) Commodity brokers that are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks
Category no (2): commodity brokers who think they are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks. Until they meet me.
Fair point.
Still they’re better than LME brokers!
No need to tell me. I worked on the International Tin Council litigation.
Hmm: Lord Templeman stressing the inability of the courts to enforce rights granted by unincorporated treaties...
> @thecommissioner said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > Along with Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill. > > It's only the likes of Blair and Ted Heath that would have opposed them.
On topic. Good grief that is one visually unattractive leaflet. This is not hard. I have yet to receive a single mail shot. This at a time when postal votes will be going in. My partner has got one, and we have also got a hand delivered one. You guessed it...both LD. Gotta hand it to them. If they do well it'll be cos they deserve it.
> @thecommissioner said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @thecommissioner said: > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe? > > > > > > > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum. > > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe. > > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland. >
If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
> @dixiedean said: > On topic. Good grief that is one visually unattractive leaflet. This is not hard. > I have yet to receive a single mail shot. This at a time when postal votes will be going in. > My partner has got one, and we have also got a hand delivered one. > You guessed it...both LD. Gotta hand it to them. If they do well it'll be cos they deserve it.
Our house has had one LD, and one Labour. The Labour one has big picure of Jezza, bangs on about austerity and hardly mentions Europe.
> > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe?
> > >
> > >
> > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum.
>
> Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe.
>
> What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland.
>
If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
> @Gallowgate said: > I'm confident that all of the PBers urging Remainers to coalesce behind the LibDems will be urging everyone to vote Labour at the next GE as the only way to get rid of the Tories. > > Nope. F*ck Labour.
This is your tactical vote wooing mode, akin to Boris wooing business?
> @justin124 said: > > @thecommissioner said: > > > @justin124 said: > > > > @thecommissioner said: > > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe? > > > > > > > > > > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum. > > > > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe. > > > > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland. > > > > If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
That does bring attention to how people are losing their marbles of BP and thinking it is the end of all things, including the big two. Nothing is impossible of course, and the situation is more fraught than in the past, but as you note the previous incarnation did pretty darn well too and it did not lead to the end of all things.
> @NickPalmer said: > > @Gallowgate said: > > I'm confident that all of the PBers urging Remainers to coalesce behind the LibDems will be urging everyone to vote Labour at the next GE as the only way to get rid of the Tories. > > > > Nope. F*ck Labour. > > This is your tactical vote wooing mode, akin to Boris wooing business?
Who to vote for in a GE to evict the Tories varies considerably by location. In many parts of the country that means LD or SNP.
> @thecommissioner said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > Along with Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill. > > It's only the likes of Blair and Ted Heath that would have opposed them.
Attlee was certainly Eurosceptic, Churchill I am not sure about, Soames was a strong Remainer.
Of former postwar PMs Eden, Macmillan, Heath, Wilson (with reservations) Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron of course were or would have been Remainers.
Attlee and Thatcher are the only PMs I think would have been likely Brexiteers with possibly Home joining them
When I discover there was a thing called the International Tin Council I almost believe the conspiracy theorists about forces controlling the world, in the sense that there are so many things about the way the world works that I, and presumably others, have absolutely no clue about. Even as a commodities thing which collapsed, or whatever, it astounds me.
Seemingly innocuous, even mundane, in restricting the supply of tin foil, the International Tin Council was an essential component of the lizards’ plan for word domination
> @HYUFD said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them. > > > > > > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour. > > > > > > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP. > > > > > > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment > > > > I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates.... > > > > I suspect she would still have voted Tory at the GE, though with reservations unless a Brexiteer was leader but in the European elections she would certainly have voted Brexit Party. > > Thatcher also got on better with the likes of Frank Field than Michael Heseltine
I think MPs enjoy better relationships across party lines than many choose to let on. Some MPs like John Prescott in the 1990s and 2000s made a thing about hating Tories for instance and chose not to associate with MPs of different parties unless necessary. This could of course just be party propaganda because Labour tend to need the hatred of Tories to keep their voters on side, which may have started to fail in recent years!
I doubt Thatcher would come out publicly for another party but Michael Heseltine who you mention above may well support a party other than the Tories because he does not want to vote for candidates that support Brexit.
I attended some training a few days ago for work on verifying votes and potential work at the count. Fair to say the elections staff were pretty steamed about this election, and the preperatory work for both a referendum and a GE they are having to do.
> > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> >
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
>
> Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
Of course there will be a threshold. For a start, a third of the population will be exempt by virtue (!) of not owning any land or other significant assets.
I'd expect the threshold to exclude a good proportion of the remainder but as I said before, maybe we whould wait for that actual detailed proposals before we condemn them?
Everyone who works is now enrolled in a pension scheme. That is a valuable asset. So unwise to assume that they would be exempt. And remember that header from Mr Meeks about one way in which Mr McDonnell could raise lots of money: nationalising pension funds.
After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
When I discover there was a thing called the International Tin Council I almost believe the conspiracy theorists about forces controlling the world, in the sense that there are so many things about the way the world works that I, and presumably others, have absolutely no clue about. Even as a commodities thing which collapsed, or whatever, it astounds me.
Seemingly innocuous, even mundane, in restricting the supply of tin foil, the International Tin Council was an essential component of the lizards’ plan for word domination
And wait till you hear about their plans for world domination .......
> @Cyclefree said: > When I discover there was a thing called the International Tin Council I almost believe the conspiracy theorists about forces controlling the world, in the sense that there are so many things about the way the world works that I, and presumably others, have absolutely no clue about. Even as a commodities thing which collapsed, or whatever, it astounds me. > > Seemingly innocuous, even mundane, in restricting the supply of tin foil, the International Tin Council was an essential component of the lizards’ plan for word domination > > And wait till you hear about their plans for world domination .......
Control our words, control our thoughts - they've already won and we don't even know it.
> @Cyclefree said: > > After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
Its not taking from those with a defined benefit scheme.
'The Financial Times is reporting that Labour is planning to nationalise Britain’s energy networks at below market value, and would do so shortly after winning a general election.
A new paper by the opposition party said shareholders would be compensated, but not necessarily at market prices. Deductions would be made to take account of “asset stripping since privatisation”, state subsidies since the 1980s and pension fund deficits, according to the FT which said Corbyn will outline the plans on Thursday.'
That’s a tasty court case to the ECHR for lots of lucky lawyers.
And a lot of misery for people saving for their pensions.
How do you think our diplomatic influence will be impacted when all those nice sovereign funds have their assets swiped?
Would Corbyn and co even care about that?
Probably not
But I guess if they revoke the HRA they can ignore the ECHR as well
Is revoking the Human Rights Act and opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights Labour policy? Really? I hadn’t heard that.
Not that I know of. But I guess if it gets in the way of their other policies they might consider it
> @another_richard said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country. > > Its not taking from those with a defined benefit scheme.
> After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
Its not taking from those with a defined benefit scheme.
Only public sector workers still operate a defined benefit scheme. Cynical theft from the private sector whilst those with feather beds get an extra duvet.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Benpointer said: > > > > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion. > > > > > > Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then... > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples > > > > Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning. > > And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value > > The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
What do we think happens when taxes get to a certain level?
Hell, even now we have doctors restricting their hours worked to avoid paying the punitive rates at 100k
It would - almost - be worth having Farage as PM to watch him enact his particular brand of “competence”. I suspect that we would be looking back at May’s Premiership as a golden age.
Sorry but I have to totally disagree. Not all PMs are of the Thatcher mould - poring over red boxes till 1am. Cameron just made announcements most of the time and flew by the seat of his pants. And he was fine as far as it goes. I'm neither expecting, nor hoping for PM Farage, but he's a relatively good communicator, and in terms of being 'up to it' I don't see that huge gulf. In terms of his legislative agenda that's a different debate.
Nothing in Farage’s past suggests any sort of competence at the actual mechanics of government. Quite the opposite. He is a good communicator. But he shines because so many other politicians are so bad at at it. And because he is prepared to say whatever will get him the applause and the approval.
I see him and I see the commodity broker he used to be. I have investigated a number of such people. Lying crooks the lot of them. Farage acts, talks and behaves like them and I am afraid when I see him in action I see just another example of the sorts of people I have so enjoyed investigating over the years. I realise that this is a very particular perspective. But there you are.
“Lying crooks the lot of them”
You’re being uncharacteristically unfair @Cyclefree
You’ve got two types of commodity brokers
(1) Lying crooks
(2) Commodity brokers that are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks
Category no (2): commodity brokers who think they are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks. Until they meet me.
Fair point.
Still they’re better than LME brokers!
No need to tell me. I worked on the International Tin Council litigation.
Hmm: Lord Templeman stressing the inability of the courts to enforce rights granted by unincorporated treaties...
The many happy days spent refining and listening to arguments about what it meant to have the attributes of a body corporate, the justiciability of treaties, sovereign immunity and all the rest of it ....
> @Floater said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @Benpointer said: > > > > > > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion. > > > > > > > > > > Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then... > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples > > > > > > > > Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning. > > > > And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value > > > > The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax. > > What do we think happens when taxes get to a certain level? > > Hell, even now we have doctors restricting their hours worked to avoid paying the punitive rates at 100k > > You ain't seen nothing yet.
It is because of the tax on pensions, not the £100 k threshold. Not least because we are being taxed on money that is not yet ours.
> Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
>
> And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value
>
> The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
What do we think happens when taxes get to a certain level?
Hell, even now we have doctors restricting their hours worked to avoid paying the punitive rates at 100k
You ain't seen nothing yet.
That’s not to avoid income tax but to stop stupidly punitive rates on their pensions imposed by the Tories, thus exacerbating the shortage of GPs and doctors in general.
Idiotic tax rules are not the sole preserve of Labour.
> @The_Taxman said: > Do you have the equivalent of council tax in Japan?
No, I think that's the only tax on owning.or living in (as opposed to buying) property, except I just checked and as well as the 1.4% on the assessed land/house value, there's an extra 0.3% town plan tax on the same thing, which seems to be enough to pay the town planners to go away and leave everyone alone.
There's also a local income tax, which is based on your previous year's income. Then on the other side of the coin there are weird subsidies, for example the town I'm moving to wants to pay me some token amount just to move there. Also the town wants to subsidize my septic tank, since the house currently only has a hole in the ground (but gigabit broadband!).
> @kle4 said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @thecommissioner said: > > > > @justin124 said: > > > > > @thecommissioner said: > > > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum. > > > > > > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe. > > > > > > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland. > > > > > > > If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum. > > That does bring attention to how people are losing their marbles of BP and thinking it is the end of all things, including the big two. Nothing is impossible of course, and the situation is more fraught than in the past, but as you note the previous incarnation did pretty darn well too and it did not lead to the end of all things.
They shaped all that followed, and all that is ongoing.
I think that UKIP and the SNP have driven the whole agenda ever since 2014. At no point have the old duopoly of Tory and Labour ever seemed in control. They are either being swept along or swept aside by events.
> > > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum.
> > >
> > > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe.
> > >
> > > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland.
> > >
> >
> > If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
>
> That does bring attention to how people are losing their marbles of BP and thinking it is the end of all things, including the big two. Nothing is impossible of course, and the situation is more fraught than in the past, but as you note the previous incarnation did pretty darn well too and it did not lead to the end of all things.
They shaped all that followed, and all that is ongoing.
I think that UKIP and the SNP have driven the whole agenda ever since 2014. At no point have the old duopoly of Tory and Labour ever seemed in control. They are either being swept along or swept aside by events.
2015 they did. I did not mean to suggest UKIP had no influence as a result of winning, but that the hysterics that the big two dominance is over because of BP probably winning the euros may be overdone. Not exactly the same situation, lab and con are weaker, but a UKIP or BP topping the poll is not new.
It would - almost - be worth having Farage as PM to watch him enact his particular brand of “competence”. I suspect that we would be looking back at May’s Premiership as a golden age.
Sorry but I have to totally disagree. Not all PMs are of the Thatcher mould - poring over red boxes till 1am. Cameron just made announcements most of the time and flew by the seat of his pants. And he was fine as far as it goes. I'm neither expecting, nor hoping for PM Farage, but he's a relatively good communicator, and in terms of being 'up to it' I don't see that huge gulf. In terms of his legislative agenda that's a different debate.
Nothing in Farage’s past suggests any sort of competence at the actual mechanics of government. Quite the opposite. He is a good communicator. But he shines because so many other politicians are so bad at at it. And because he is prepared to say whatever will get him the applause and the approval.
I see him and I see the commodity broker he used to be. I have investigated a number of such people. Lying crooks the lot of them. Farage acts, talks and behaves like them and I am afraid when I see him in action I see just another example of the sorts of people I have so enjoyed investigating over the years. I realise that this is a very particular perspective. But there you are.
“Lying crooks the lot of them”
You’re being uncharacteristically unfair @Cyclefree
You’ve got two types of commodity brokers
(1) Lying crooks
(2) Commodity brokers that are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks
Category no (2): commodity brokers who think they are smart enough to get away with being lying crooks. Until they meet me.
Fair point.
Still they’re better than LME brokers!
No need to tell me. I worked on the International Tin Council litigation.
Hmm: Lord Templeman stressing the inability of the courts to enforce rights granted by unincorporated treaties...
The many happy days spent refining and listening to arguments about what it meant to have the attributes of a body corporate, the justiciability of treaties, sovereign immunity and all the rest of it ....
> You are missing the point. > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is > what compensation at less than market value is.
It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
> @rcs1000 said: > > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration. > > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
What about the Californian system of basing it on the most recent sale price
That poll would imply a large swing from Leave to Remain. I'm not getting my hopes up just yet.
Thinking that a Liberal vote is the way to go, despite the fact that I swore I’d never vote for them again after the 2010 stitch up. Cable is shit. They are still unapologetic Tory prop-ups.
> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
> plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
> what compensation at less than market value is.
It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
And we see the formation of a new industry of fraudsters offering free valuations to little old ladies who want to fill in their decelerations “correctly”
I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
Heinlein's on the phone. He wants his idea back...
> @Charles said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > You are missing the point. > > > > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > > > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure > > > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > > > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is > > > what compensation at less than market value is. > > > > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration. > > > > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it. > > And we see the formation of a new industry of fraudsters offering free valuations to little old ladies who want to fill in their decelerations “correctly”
> @viewcode said: > You are missing the point. > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is. > > > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration. > > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it. > > Heinlein's on the phone. He wants his idea back...
What about the Californian system of basing it on the most recent sale price
Here's some interesting factoids:
A non-trivial number of homes (flats, houses, etc) in the UK have never been sold, they get passed down thru the family. A smaller number are not on the Land Registry for that or similar reasons.
I looked at a house once that had last been sold in the 1920's. The parents had bought it off the council, bought up a family, one of the children had stayed it after their parents died, brought up their family, they died, then one of their kids lived there and then died with no children. There were a scattering of nieces, nephews and cousins and the family wanted to put the house up for auction. Problem is, the question of "who owned it?" could not be easily answered.
The lawyers and the auctioneer went thru the paperwork. One or two of the survivors had to formally renounce their claim before ownership became unambiguous.
And that is why, if you ever try to buy a house at auction, it is vitally important to confirm that the person selling it actually owns it...
The taxe foncière is set by the local commune/marie and is based on a hypothetical (valeur locative cadastrale) rental value. You don't value your own house and nobody has the right to force a purchase.
> And we see the formation of a new industry of fraudsters offering free valuations to little old ladies who want to fill in their decelerations “correctly”
Alternatively you could bolt the Harberger Tax thing on backwards: Let some government assessor decide the value of your property for tax purposes, but if you think they've gone too high you can require the government to buy it from you at that price.
The government could then contract this whole thing out to private companies that would try to maximize the tax revenue while avoiding buying property for more than it's worth, and they'd get to keep a cut.
Comments
In itself that wouldn't much matter, except that the Labour Party has also completely lost its marbles and its decency at the same time, so there's no broadly acceptable alternative. This is unprecedented in modern times. Previously one or other party has sometimes lost its way, but not both at the same time.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Black_Rook said:
> > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
> > > >
> > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead?
> > >
> > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas.
> > >
> > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier
> >
> > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19
>
> Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate
-----------------------------------------
Doesn't that depend on whether after pausing and thinking there is a good answer afterwards? I've not listened to it so I don't know what his response was, but while spouting off something stupid is bad, pausing and thinking about it then still saying something stupid, or not saying anything at all, doesn't strike me as much of an improvement, so a pause doesn't necessarily mean anything good.
Brilliant.
>
> I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> You are missing the point.
>
> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
> > @another_richard said:
> > Here's some interesting economic data - in the twelve months to the end of March the cumulative number of working days lost to labour disputes was only 107 thousand - the lowest on record.
> >
> > By comparison every month from February 1991 back to May 1942 the cumulative twelve month total was over a million lost days - regularly over ten million lost days during the 1970s and 1980s.
> >
> > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> >
> > Data on page 18 of the spreadsheet here:
> >
> > https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics
> >
>
> I think the weakness of private sector unions is because the battles are won, as well as service industries harder to unionise.
>
> Equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, health and safety. These are all enforced by law, often EU law. There simply is less need to be in a union compared to when I was born.
Yet pay has stagnated for a decade and we are in an era of wealth concentration among the 1%, soaring directors pay etc.
I would have thought at least a few unions would start agitating for better pay.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> >
> > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> >
> > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
>
> Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
I'm not sure she would be a Tory today
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Foxy said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > @Black_Rook said:
> > > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
> > > > >
> > > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead?
> > > >
> > > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas.
> > > >
> > > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier
> > >
> > > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19
> >
> > Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate
>
> He paused, and couldn't think of any. An empty vessel.
It was an irrelevant question, if the Brexit Party win it will be because democracy has been betrayed and we are not Leaving the EU not because they did not mouth leftwing platitudes hard enough
> > @kle4 said:
>
> > > @Black_Rook said:
>
> > > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > > > @brokenwheel said:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > It does occur to me that TBP’s strategy of carpeting the nation in election leaflets might backfire in boosting remainer turnout.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > What do people think turnout will be? The highest for the European elections was 38.5% but I could see it going comfortably above 40%.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Political journalists will clearly spend many hours trying to read the tea leaves whatever the result; the reality is that the Peterborough by-election could be more significant. If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
>
> > >
>
> > > Cue much pant-soiling in Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, County Durham, the South Wales Valleys and a number of other areas.
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > And yet if it happens it just polarises things in the same way they are now. No deal leavers will shit themselves and say it shows of course we must no deal or all leavers will be punished. Remainers will say a fascist party has won on the back of racist hysteria and so we must revoke by whatever means necessary and never again risk leaving, they won't believe BP would win a GE even then, just ruin the Tories and cost Labour some seats, to be sure.
>
>
>
>
>
> May will never win No Deal ERG hardliners or Remainers, what she has to win are 50 or so Labour MPs from Leave seats to add to the 280 the Deal got last time to get a small majority. The Brexit Party taking Peterborough from Labour following a Brexit Party surge in the European elections in the North and Midlands could be just the ticket
>
> Don't forget she had Boris, JRM and others in reluctant support last time... Can't see them supporting next time.
-----------------------------
Quite. They haven't gone the full sad sack Richard Drax route, but especially now BP is polling so well it seems pretty likely their 'this is absolutely horrible, but it might be the only Brexit we get' reasoning will not apply with another vote.
The benefit of them having done so is it severely undercuts the whines about the WA not being Brexit at all, just that it is a bad Brexit for many.
> > @kle4 said:
>
> > > @Black_Rook said:
>
> > > > @williamglenn said:
>
> > > > > @brokenwheel said:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > It does occur to me that TBP’s strategy of carpeting the nation in election leaflets might backfire in boosting remainer turnout.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > What do people think turnout will be? The highest for the European elections was 38.5% but I could see it going comfortably above 40%.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Political journalists will clearly spend many hours trying to read the tea leaves whatever the result; the reality is that the Peterborough by-election could be more significant. If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
>
> > >
>
> > > Cue much pant-soiling in Essex, Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire, County Durham, the South Wales Valleys and a number of other areas.
>
> >
>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > And yet if it happens it just polarises things in the same way they are now. No deal leavers will shit themselves and say it shows of course we must no deal or all leavers will be punished. Remainers will say a fascist party has won on the back of racist hysteria and so we must revoke by whatever means necessary and never again risk leaving, they won't believe BP would win a GE even then, just ruin the Tories and cost Labour some seats, to be sure.
>
>
>
>
>
> May will never win No Deal ERG hardliners or Remainers, what she has to win are 50 or so Labour MPs from Leave seats to add to the 280 the Deal got last time to get a small majority. The Brexit Party taking Peterborough from Labour following a Brexit Party surge in the European elections in the North and Midlands could be just the ticket
>
> Don't forget she had Boris, JRM and others in reluctant support last time... Can't see them supporting next time.
Given the alternative remains the Commons preventing Brexit altogether I don't think that follows, provided she does not add a CU to the WA PD
> > @another_richard said:
>
> > Here's some interesting economic data - in the twelve months to the end of March the cumulative number of working days lost to labour disputes was only 107 thousand - the lowest on record.
>
> >
>
> > By comparison every month from February 1991 back to May 1942 the cumulative twelve month total was over a million lost days - regularly over ten million lost days during the 1970s and 1980s.
>
> >
>
> > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
>
> >
>
> > Data on page 18 of the spreadsheet here:
>
> >
>
> > https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/summaryoflabourmarketstatistics
>
> >
>
>
>
> I think the weakness of private sector unions is because the battles are won, as well as service industries harder to unionise.
>
>
>
> Equal pay, holiday pay, security against unfare dismissal, health and safety. These are all enforced by law, often EU law. There simply is less need to be in a union compared to when I was born.
>
> Usually, the complaint on the left is that we have very liberal labour markets with little job security. That would suggest either that there is a need for unions, or that left wing complaints are misplaced.
That is certainly not true, particularly compared with previous generations.
We have great protections in law.
> I don't think taxing assets like a family home is the way to go. How would a government go about taxing a house for starters? Would it force the owner to take out some sort of mortgage to obtain the cash? Many people under the age of 50 for instance maybe asset rich (Owning a home bit with a mortgage) but cash poor.
>
> In a similar vein Is it really fair to induce a wealth tax on someone's bank account if they have over a certain amount of money either? It does not feel right to me.
>
> I do think it is time to turn the spending taps on again to some extent but I question the validity of wealth taxes. To be honest I don't think increasing income tax works beyond a certain point as it creates disincentives or actually lowers the tax take beyond a certain point.
>
> It is a noble quest to make a society more equal but you can only push these things so far. In terms of a tax increase I would happily see would be capital gains tax, increased by the coalition and cut by the Conservatives. Capital gains tax would for instance hit second home owners or landlords but unless the rules were changed would not hit a family home.
We have a tax on fixed assets in Japan that you pay on land and the house on the land. IIRC it's 1.4% of the assessed value. It works fine. It's just one of the ongoing costs you take into account when you buy a place, like the cost of heating or repairs.
It helps avoid people hogging property they don't need for wealth storage like they do in Britain, and makes for very efficient land use. For example, it's really easy to find parking in Tokyo, because any bit of land that's temporarily vacant waiting for construction to start or whatever will get a car park on it.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> >
> > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> >
> > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
>
> Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @Foxy said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > > @Black_Rook said:
> > > > > > > If the Brexit Party can actually get over the finishing line in that one then it would potentially bring the political survival of all sitting MPs in strongly Leave-leaning seats into question (and according to estimates there are 100 constituencies which voted Leave in 2016 by greater margins than did Peterborough, and about another 60 where the proportion was a little lower but still in excess of 60%.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what happens if BP limp home in third or fourth in Peterborough? Is Brexit dead?
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlikely, I know the BP are already canvassing in Peterborough and apparently getting a very positive reception in most areas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given Peterborough voted 60% Leave a 10,000 Brexit Party majority in Peterborough on a 50% turnout is not impossible especially as they will have all the momentum from their likely win in the European elections a fortnight earlier
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if you caught this Pinteresque pause earlier today:
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1128185747964596224?s=19
> > >
> > > Better to pause and think than spout off without thinking, he is a good candidate
> >
> > He paused, and couldn't think of any. An empty vessel.
>
> It was an irrelevant question, if the Brexit Party win it will be because democracy has been betrayed and we are not Leaving the EU not because they did not mouth leftwing platitudes hard enough
>
----------------------
I'm confused. I thought the argument was he was a good candidate because he paused and thought about how to answer a question, but now the argument is that the question was irrelevant, in which case why is he a good candidate for pausing and thinking about an answer to an irrelevant question?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
> > @Jonathan said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > >
> > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > >
> > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> >
> > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
>
Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > >
> > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> >
>
> Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
>
> Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
>
The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
> So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
>
> Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
>
> And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
Certainly.
Just googling I come across this dockstrike a few weeks after the 1970 election
' A state of emergency was proclaimed yesterday by the Queen as the national dock strike brought complete disruption to the ports. Soon afterwards, the Government announced the setting up of a Court of Inquiry into the dispute. No final decision on its chairman has yet been made, but a strong candidate is Lord Pearson, who accepted a similar assignment during the seaman’s strike of 1966.
Mr Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, received both announcements with unconcealed disapproval. He questioned the wisdom of sending troops into the docks, and said the unions would be willing to give evidence to the court, “but without obligation.” From now on, however, the unions would continue to develop the “full strength of the strike.”
The proclamation was made at Buckingham Palace yesterday afternoon soon after the Queen’s return from Canada. It followed a meeting of the Privy Council over which she presided. Earlier in the day the Cabinet had held a two-hour meeting at which it decided to invoke the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 without delay. The brief 121-word statement was brought to the Commons by the Home Secretary, Mr Maudling, and handed to the Speaker, who read it out. Later Mr Maudling told a packed House that the powers “to secure the essentials of life to the community” would only be used if necessary. '
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/17/state-of-emergency-dock-strike-archive-1970
Now I knew that there was a serious dockstrike in 1972:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentonville_Five
but the 1970 strike was completely new to me.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > > >
> > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
> >
> > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
>
> Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > I don't think taxing assets like a family home is the way to go. How would a government go about taxing a house for starters? Would it force the owner to take out some sort of mortgage to obtain the cash? Many people under the age of 50 for instance maybe asset rich (Owning a home bit with a mortgage) but cash poor.
> >
> > In a similar vein Is it really fair to induce a wealth tax on someone's bank account if they have over a certain amount of money either? It does not feel right to me.
> >
> > I do think it is time to turn the spending taps on again to some extent but I question the validity of wealth taxes. To be honest I don't think increasing income tax works beyond a certain point as it creates disincentives or actually lowers the tax take beyond a certain point.
> >
> > It is a noble quest to make a society more equal but you can only push these things so far. In terms of a tax increase I would happily see would be capital gains tax, increased by the coalition and cut by the Conservatives. Capital gains tax would for instance hit second home owners or landlords but unless the rules were changed would not hit a family home.
>
> We have a tax on fixed assets in Japan that you pay on land and the house on the land. IIRC it's 1.4% of the assessed value. It works fine. It's just one of the ongoing costs you take into account when you buy a place, like the cost of heating or repairs.
>
> It helps avoid people hogging property they don't need for wealth storage like they do in Britain, and makes for very efficient land use. For example, it's really easy to find parking in Tokyo, because any bit of land that's temporarily vacant waiting for construction to start or whatever will get a car park on it.
Thanks.
Do you have the equivalent of council tax in Japan?
> > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> >
>
> > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> >
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
>
> Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
> > @HYUFD said:
> >
> > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> >
>
> The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
> Why is it when partisans talk about their favourite past leaders the tone becomes akin to religious doctrine about what the divine would think of us now? I swear, when people start banging on about Thatcher it just puts me in mind of medieval armies facing off, each with priests telling them Jesus backs them against those evil doers on the other side.
But the side who won the battle were proven correct, weren't they?
> > @kle4 said:
> > Why is it when partisans talk about their favourite past leaders the tone becomes akin to religious doctrine about what the divine would think of us now? I swear, when people start banging on about Thatcher it just puts me in mind of medieval armies facing off, each with priests telling them Jesus backs them against those evil doers on the other side.
>
> But the side who won the battle were proven correct, weren't they?
------------------------------------------
That's the spirit
And these negotiations usually involved compromises and concessions from both sides to reach an outcome all could reasonably accept.
But our current generation of politicians have never needed to similarly negotiate.
And the Brexit impasse with its increasing fanaticism and extreme views is a consequence.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Foxy said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
> >
> > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
>
> The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990.
In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10045061/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-Britain-to-leave-the-EU.html
In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'.
Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum.
He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html
Thatcher was also a democrat and would be appalled the Leave vote has been ignored
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
> >
> > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
>
> No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
>
> Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
>
> There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates....
> In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
---------------------
Ah, so basically a decade and more after leaving office she no longer had useful insights then, only trite, silly slogans?
But who am I to argue with the untamed love people have for a political leader, however impressive in her day, to the point they feel the need to justify everything they do forevermore based on what she might have thought about it all? I look forward to arguments in the 2050s about what Mrs Thatcher would have thought about the invasion of the Xargon interplanetary force, or the harsh new policies of the machine overlords.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
> >
> > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
>
> No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
>
> Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
>
> There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
That is why I said in her Eighties heyday.
After that she went down the rabbit hole, and turned on her own party.
I'd expect the threshold to exclude a good proportion of the remainder but as I said before, maybe we whould wait for that actual detailed proposals before we condemn them?
> Bernard-Henri Levy on Newsnight. Wonderful stuff!
Corbyn's fans won't be happy with what he said.
https://twitter.com/itma_miked/status/1128312553917091840?s=21
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @Foxy said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
> > >
> > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
> >
> > The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
> Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990.
>
> In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10045061/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-Britain-to-leave-the-EU.html
>
> In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'.
> Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum.
> He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.'
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html
>
> Thatcher was also a democrat and would be appalled the Leave vote has been ignored
>
She opposed referendums as against parliamentary democracy.
> Now here's an idea - back in the 1970s and 1980s with all their strikes politicians frequently had to negotiate to bring crises to an end.
>
> And these negotiations usually involved compromises and concessions from both sides to reach an outcome all could reasonably accept.
>
> But our current generation of politicians have never needed to similarly negotiate.
>
> And the Brexit impasse with its increasing fanaticism and extreme views is a consequence.
Politics at anytime is a negotiation! I take your point about industrial disputes but any UK Government has several million employees to deal with and Government employees are amongst the most unionised. The Northern Ireland problems still exist and take negotiation. It is not as straight forward as first looks.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Foxy said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @Foxy said:
> > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > @Jonathan said:
> > > > > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > > > > > So why at a time of near full employment and after a decade of stagnant wages have strikes almost died out ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you really need to ask? Maggie slew the dragon. It's as simple as that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And it certainly needed slaying. People talk about the UK being a divided country today. Those of us old enough to remember the 70s and late 60s know what a really divided country is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thatcher would be appalled at what the Tory party has become.
> > > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not the Maggie of her heyday in the Eighties.
> > > >
> > > > Thatcher always supported a Common Market, post Maastricht she wanted out of the EU, she would definitely be voting Brexit Party on the 23rd
> > >
> > > The Maggie who introduced and advocated the Single European Act, and advocated bring in the Eastern European states?
> > Maggie backed a single market of goods and capital not of labour and she never advocated the open door approach to Eastern European migration of Blair without transition controls, she even had reservations about uniting East and West Germany in 1990.
> >
> > In her memoirs, published in 2002, Lady Thatcher insisted that it was not “unthinkable” for Britain to leave, adding: “The blunt truth is that the rest of the European Union needs us more than we need them.”
> >
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10045061/Margaret-Thatcher-wanted-Britain-to-leave-the-EU.html
> >
> > In a note to Bill Cash 'Lady Thatcher attacked the EU project as 'contrary to British interests and damaging to our Parliamentary democracy'.
> > Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, who was personally handed the note in 1993, said it was therefore 'simply inconceivable' she would have done anything other than campaign to leave in the upcoming referendum.
> > He said Lady Thatcher had given the letter to him with specific instructions to make it public if there was ever any doubt over whether or not she would have signed up to the 'European project'.'
> >
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441473/Why-lady-turning-grave-Revealed-23-years-letter-proves-ex-aide-wrong-say-d-Dave-Europe.html
> >
> > Thatcher was also a democrat and would be appalled the Leave vote has been ignored
> >
>
> She opposed referendums as against parliamentary democracy.
Thatcher was not a fan of referendums but she would certainly have expected the results of those held to be respected, just as the 1975 referendum she campaign in was. Like much of her generation she shifted from being pro Common Market then to firmly anti EU in her latter years
> Two MEPs for ChangeUK might be a tad optimistic I fear.
>
> Young Mr Smithson knows a thing or two about expectation management
+1
The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > >
> > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
> >
> > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
> >
> > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
> >
> > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
>
> I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates....
>
I suspect she would still have voted Tory at the GE, though with reservations unless a Brexiteer was leader but in the European elections she would certainly have voted Brexit Party.
Thatcher also got on better with the likes of Frank Field than Michael Heseltine
But I guess if they revoke the HRA they can ignore the ECHR as well
>
> She didn't like Maastricht?
She didn't like the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany.
> >
> > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> >
Along with Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.
It's only the likes of Blair and Ted Heath that would have opposed them.
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
>
> Along with Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.
>
> It's only the likes of Blair and Ted Heath that would have opposed them.
And Sir Walter Raleigh?
I have yet to receive a single mail shot. This at a time when postal votes will be going in.
My partner has got one, and we have also got a hand delivered one.
You guessed it...both LD. Gotta hand it to them. If they do well it'll be cos they deserve it.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > Bernard-Henri Levy on Newsnight. Wonderful stuff!
>
> Corbyn's fans won't be happy with what he said.
Vote Chukka?
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > > @brokenwheel said:
> > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe?
> > >
> > >
> > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum.
>
> Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe.
>
> What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland.
>
If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
> On topic. Good grief that is one visually unattractive leaflet. This is not hard.
> I have yet to receive a single mail shot. This at a time when postal votes will be going in.
> My partner has got one, and we have also got a hand delivered one.
> You guessed it...both LD. Gotta hand it to them. If they do well it'll be cos they deserve it.
Our house has had one LD, and one Labour. The Labour one has big picure of Jezza, bangs on about austerity and hardly mentions Europe.
> I'm confident that all of the PBers urging Remainers to coalesce behind the LibDems will be urging everyone to vote Labour at the next GE as the only way to get rid of the Tories.
>
> Nope. F*ck Labour.
This is your tactical vote wooing mode, akin to Boris wooing business?
> > @thecommissioner said:
> > > @justin124 said:
> > > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > > > @brokenwheel said:
> > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum.
> >
> > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe.
> >
> > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland.
> >
>
> If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
That does bring attention to how people are losing their marbles of BP and thinking it is the end of all things, including the big two. Nothing is impossible of course, and the situation is more fraught than in the past, but as you note the previous incarnation did pretty darn well too and it did not lead to the end of all things.
> > @Gallowgate said:
> > I'm confident that all of the PBers urging Remainers to coalesce behind the LibDems will be urging everyone to vote Labour at the next GE as the only way to get rid of the Tories.
> >
> > Nope. F*ck Labour.
>
> This is your tactical vote wooing mode, akin to Boris wooing business?
Who to vote for in a GE to evict the Tories varies considerably by location. In many parts of the country that means LD or SNP.
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > >
>
> Along with Clement Attlee and Winston Churchill.
>
> It's only the likes of Blair and Ted Heath that would have opposed them.
Attlee was certainly Eurosceptic, Churchill I am not sure about, Soames was a strong Remainer.
Of former postwar PMs Eden, Macmillan, Heath, Wilson (with reservations) Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron of course were or would have been Remainers.
Attlee and Thatcher are the only PMs I think would have been likely Brexiteers with possibly Home joining them
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thatcher would be voting Brexit Party in the European elections without a doubt
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Brexit Party is the 2019 equivalent of Michael Foot's Labour. It's madness to think Thatcher would have voted for them.
> > >
> > > No it is not on any definition, that is Corbyn Labour.
> > >
> > > Thatcher ever since the Bruges Group Speech and Maastricht was fiercely anti EU, in 2001 she came out fighting to back IDS and stop Ken Clarke becoming Tory leader so hostile was she to Clarke's pro EU views. She even in her latter years wrote letters to the Telegraph sympathetic to UKIP.
> > >
> > > There is no doubt whatsoever Thatcher would be a Brexit Party supporter at the moment
> >
> > I think you misjudge her. She may have been against certain individuals within the party but I don't think she ever went looking outside of it for political soulmates....
> >
>
> I suspect she would still have voted Tory at the GE, though with reservations unless a Brexiteer was leader but in the European elections she would certainly have voted Brexit Party.
>
> Thatcher also got on better with the likes of Frank Field than Michael Heseltine
I think MPs enjoy better relationships across party lines than many choose to let on. Some MPs like John Prescott in the 1990s and 2000s made a thing about hating Tories for instance and chose not to associate with MPs of different parties unless necessary. This could of course just be party propaganda because Labour tend to need the hatred of Tories to keep their voters on side, which may have started to fail in recent years!
I doubt Thatcher would come out publicly for another party but Michael Heseltine who you mention above may well support a party other than the Tories because he does not want to vote for candidates that support Brexit.
After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
> Mr Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers’ Union
.... later turned out to be working for the USSR.
> When I discover there was a thing called the International Tin Council I almost believe the conspiracy theorists about forces controlling the world, in the sense that there are so many things about the way the world works that I, and presumably others, have absolutely no clue about. Even as a commodities thing which collapsed, or whatever, it astounds me.
>
> Seemingly innocuous, even mundane, in restricting the supply of tin foil, the International Tin Council was an essential component of the lizards’ plan for word domination
>
> And wait till you hear about their plans for world domination .......
Control our words, control our thoughts - they've already won and we don't even know it.
>
> After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
Its not taking from those with a defined benefit scheme.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> >
> > After all, nationalising water and energy companies at less than market value is taking from the pension funds of every employee in the country.
>
> Its not taking from those with a defined benefit scheme.
Are you seriously trying to defend it?
Corbynism is a gusset stain on British life.
> > @Benpointer said:
>
> > > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
>
> >
>
> > Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
>
> >
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
>
>
>
> Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
>
> And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value
>
> The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
What do we think happens when taxes get to a certain level?
Hell, even now we have doctors restricting their hours worked to avoid paying the punitive rates at 100k
You ain't seen nothing yet.
All that and the LME too.
What a case that was.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Benpointer said:
> >
> > > > Pah! Heard all this 'end of days' nonsense before 1997.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I'm a modest landowner (as in house with large garden, which probably puts me well into the top 5%, if not 1%). Taxes are necessary for a well-ordered society and need to be balanced away from income towards wealth imo. Happy to pay my share.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > You are missing the point.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Wealth taxes are a sign of desperation. They happen when you have taxed income and expenditure as much as you can - and have nowhere else to go before you either scale back government activity or start seeing large scale evasion.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain all desperate then...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for that link. Very interesting. I note that most of these have wealth threshold levels - if they are set high and are tapered then you might argue that they are 'progressive'. My concern - knowing HMRC - is that our government is so short of cash that they will not be so discerning.
> >
> > And they are not based on some arbitrary value which bears no relation to market value
> >
> > The FT report which started all this refers to compensation at less than market value. It’s only a small step from compensation at less than market value to taxation at more than market value. That’s the issue - the basis on which tax/compensation is levied and whether it amounts to expropriation - not whether or not there should be a tax.
>
> What do we think happens when taxes get to a certain level?
>
> Hell, even now we have doctors restricting their hours worked to avoid paying the punitive rates at 100k
>
> You ain't seen nothing yet.
It is because of the tax on pensions, not the £100 k threshold. Not least because we are being taxed on money that is not yet ours.
Idiotic tax rules are not the sole preserve of Labour.
> Do you have the equivalent of council tax in Japan?
No, I think that's the only tax on owning.or living in (as opposed to buying) property, except I just checked and as well as the 1.4% on the assessed land/house value, there's an extra 0.3% town plan tax on the same thing, which seems to be enough to pay the town planners to go away and leave everyone alone.
There's also a local income tax, which is based on your previous year's income. Then on the other side of the coin there are weird subsidies, for example the town I'm moving to wants to pay me some token amount just to move there. Also the town wants to subsidize my septic tank, since the house currently only has a hole in the ground (but gigabit broadband!).
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > > @justin124 said:
> > > > > @thecommissioner said:
> > > > > > @brokenwheel said:
> > > > > > So isn’t this going to be fun, we essentially two different sets of polls. Who to believe?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The BP are winning all of them. 0-26 or 0-34 in a few weeks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The difference is important though - a BP vote share below 25% would be unlikely to generate further momentum.
> > >
> > > Well, they are polling 26-34% at the moment and we've repeatedly seen how quickly winners can emerge from virtually nowhere in the last 10-15 years in Europe.
> > >
> > > What were the SNP polling in 2007 when they first won an election? Eight years later, they almost had a clean sweep in Scotland.
> > >
> >
> > If BP fail to better UKIP's 2014 performance, I do not expect them to gain momentum.
>
> That does bring attention to how people are losing their marbles of BP and thinking it is the end of all things, including the big two. Nothing is impossible of course, and the situation is more fraught than in the past, but as you note the previous incarnation did pretty darn well too and it did not lead to the end of all things.
They shaped all that followed, and all that is ongoing.
I think that UKIP and the SNP have driven the whole agenda ever since 2014. At no point have the old duopoly of Tory and Labour ever seemed in control. They are either being swept along or swept aside by events.
> You are missing the point.
>
> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
> plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
> what compensation at less than market value is.
It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
>
> Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
What about the Californian system of basing it on the most recent sale price
But.
BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT
Frightening is not the word I would choose! 🏴
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
>
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
>
> > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
>
> > what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
>
>
>
> Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> And we see the formation of a new industry of fraudsters offering free valuations to little old ladies who want to fill in their decelerations “correctly”
That's so sweet. People can be really helpful.
> You are missing the point.
>
> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
> It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
>
> Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> Heinlein's on the phone. He wants his idea back...
That's how it works in France.
A non-trivial number of homes (flats, houses, etc) in the UK have never been sold, they get passed down thru the family.
A smaller number are not on the Land Registry for that or similar reasons.
I looked at a house once that had last been sold in the 1920's. The parents had bought it off the council, bought up a family, one of the children had stayed it after their parents died, brought up their family, they died, then one of their kids lived there and then died with no children. There were a scattering of nieces, nephews and cousins and the family wanted to put the house up for auction. Problem is, the question of "who owned it?" could not be easily answered.
The lawyers and the auctioneer went thru the paperwork. One or two of the survivors had to formally renounce their claim before ownership became unambiguous.
And that is why, if you ever try to buy a house at auction, it is vitally important to confirm that the person selling it actually owns it...
Alternatively you could bolt the Harberger Tax thing on backwards: Let some government assessor decide the value of your property for tax purposes, but if you think they've gone too high you can require the government to buy it from you at that price.
The government could then contract this whole thing out to private companies that would try to maximize the tax revenue while avoiding buying property for more than it's worth, and they'd get to keep a cut.