Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
you don't need to be old to remember you saying that the tories should spend more .......
I think we can all agree these are exceptional times
I have never advocated borrowing or printing money though. I am happy for more government spending in certain areas, but from tax, not borrowing.
Tax receipts are going to be a bit light at the moment though....
As I say, exceptional times - not sure what choice they have.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Nonsense. Money goes round and round, and gets taxed as it goes. As your own post makes clear, there isn't really such a thing as "single taxation".
That’s the point. Governments tax transactions. A transfer is not a transaction.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
you don't need to be old to remember you saying that the tories should spend more .......
I think we can all agree these are exceptional times
I have never advocated borrowing or printing money though. I am happy for more government spending in certain areas, but from tax, not borrowing.
Tax receipts are going to be a bit light at the moment though....
As I say, exceptional times - not sure what choice they have.
''|A bit light''.......LOL the understatement of the century
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
It is rather difficult to get patients to turn up at my diabetic clinic at present. I cannot think why...
It is interesting. I am sure that a lot of serious illnesses are going untreated as a result of the situation we are in. I am also sure that possibly an equal amount of A&E, GP, Clinic visits of a trivial and indeed time-wasting nature are not occurring. Both of these aspects are features of a free at the point of use and on-demand health service system. It is a great pity that one aspect cannot be permanently eliminated. That is the kind of NHS reform I would favour.
For Moss the manner in which the battle was fought was as important as the outcome, and this sporting attitude cost him the 1958 World Championship when he stood up for rival Mike Hawthorn, who faced a penalty in Portugal that would, in retrospect, have denied him the points that he needed to beat Moss. Stirling never for one moment entertained any thought of gaining an advantage in such a way, and in any case his natural sense of justice would not have allowed him to see Hawthorn unjustly penalized. So he stepped forward to defend him. Hawthorn subsequently went on to beat Moss by a mere point, even though he had only won one race that year to Moss's four.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
They tried that at Holyrood...
How did that work out?
It's not my fault the Scots can't organise a piss up in a distillery. Obviously there are "lessons to be learned".
Apart from Labour ineptness, brown envelopes etc it worked very well. Cost a fraction of Westminster champagne budget and whilst I am no fan of the exterior design , the chamber is streets ahead of Westminster and it all works very well. Who would have thought a dense ultra right wing union jack loving lickspittle unionist would disparage it.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
Watching the video again to remind myself, I’m afraid one of the problems was Swinson. Unfortunately she just didn’t have “it”. I understand what she was going for - a grown up between Corbyn and Johnson, trying to promote a sense of decency. Unfortunately, the “grown up” style came across as hectoring and people just couldn’t reconcile this attitude with the pledge to immediately cancel Brexit. Presentationally I think she was very poor. A shame as I think perhaps in different times she could have had a good stab at being leader, but these were exceptional times and she wasn’t the right person for the job.
Once Swinson ruled out working with Labour, which she did immediately and without apparent consideration or reflection, the jig was up. The only way the LDs could get to revoke Article 50 and/or hold a second referendum was through cooperating with Labour. Lyndon B Johnson's first rule of politics: learn to count.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
They could sit 2m apart I assume
And wash each card after each handling until they become soggy?
BREAKING: SPAIN’S CORONAVIRUS DEATH RATE INCREASES AFTER YESTERDAY’S 19-DAY LOW BUT INFECTION RATE DROPS
AFTER three straight days of decline, Spain’s daily coronavirus death rate has increased this morning with 619 registered deaths. It’s up from the 510 recorded yesterday, which had represented a 19-day low. Some 16,972 people have now lost their lives to the disease in Spain. Meanwhile the number of confirmed cases has increased by 4,167 to reach a total of 166,019. However the number of recorded new cases has dropped from the 4,830 reported on Saturday. Meanwhile, the number of recovered COVID-19 sufferers stands at 62,391 as of Sunday morning. It means 3,282 people were rid of the disease in the last 24 hours. The number of recovered patients and new infections continue their general trend of becoming closer, suggesting Spain is continuing to flatten the curve of its epidemic. Source: Olive Press
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
That's perhaps what they should for. What they seem to be for is Europe and transsexuals. Which is ground the Labour Party often seemz keen to cover.
If Ed Davey rather than Layla Moran is confirmed as next LD leader then the LDs will indeed be economically liberal and fiscally conservative and with less emphasis on 'woke' social issues while keeping the desire to be closely aligned with the EU/EEA.
That would reflect the fact most LD target seats now are held by the Tories in wealthy parts of London and the South
‘We always had a lot of swords on the table in the Sudan. We always gave those [REDACTED] a fair trial before we shot them.’
Yes, well I'm relieved you censored that. Corporal Jones was not the most enlightened of characters. Behind that comedic mask lurked something decidedly murky.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
All I see is someone living up to their user name.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
er no...most people are praying they don;t get ill with something that ain't Coronavirus because the chances of getting treated are precisely zip.
No. In my own Trust we have separate A and E for the regular stuff, Chemo and cancer work is continuing, old ladies are having their #NOFs pinned pretty much as usual.
Perhaps not the best time for a diabetes annual review, but patients can have it if they are concerned.
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Yep, that is why polling at this point tells us next to nothing. At some point in the near future the government is going to have to start making decisions about who to tax, in what way and at what rates, while simultaneously developing plans for spending on public services, including the NHS, social care and plenty more on top. It’s going to be very interesting.
Mr. Meeks, it wouldn't exactly encourage our dire savings rate to rise if we tax those with the temerity to save.
My income's certainly at the lower end (arguably the lowest) of regular PBers, but I do have some small savings.
The idea I should pay more for being responsible with my money does not sit well with me.
There's a bigger problem for those who like the idea of taxing assets rather than income. Assets can be moved, generally. But even more important than that is that income happens year after year, so you can use it to fund annual expenditure. Assets can rise and fall. Taxation, of course, encourages them to fall. So if you shift to an asset model (which is quite medieval) then what do you do if people start spending even more and saving even less?
Your tax brings in less money.
And people are less secure even than they are today, because fewer have savings, and those who do have less savings.
You want to encourage people who can work to work. At present the tax system penalises high income low wealth people at the expense of high wealth low income people - other groups can be ignored for present purposes. This is exactly the wrong way round. And you want to equalise wealth much more than income.
NB if this switch were made now I would have been clobbered both on the way up and on the way down, but that’s life. It would be a lot fairer and give a lot more people an equal chance in life.
So a spendthrift who never accumulates wealth with his 40k salary but instead spends it on blackjack and hookers gets to live relatively tax free
Where as the cautious person who invests his money to buy a family home, saves to help their kids with their 40k salary gets clobbered with tax because they have "wealth"
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
You might, your children and relatives would rather not see inheritance tax raised
True - but it`s not their money. people shouldn`t live their lives in expectation of an inheritance.
No but that does not mean people shouldn't want to preserve the family assets either
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
So what it’s irrelevant the building just needs to be fit for purpose.
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
So what it’s irrelevant the building just needs to be fit for purpose.
Beauty is irrelevant? Beauty is everything in an ugly world.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
That's perhaps what they should for. What they seem to be for is Europe and transsexuals. Which is ground the Labour Party often seemz keen to cover.
If Ed Davey rather than Layla Moran is confirmed as next LD leader then the LDs will indeed be economically liberal and fiscally conservative and with less emphasis on 'woke' social issues while keeping the desire to be closely aligned with the EU/EEA.
That would reflect the fact most LD target seats now are held by the Tories in wealthy parts of London and the South
The LibDems problem is the shifting Overton Window. "Who we are" isn't the conversation to be having when what people want / need is shifting so quickly.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
But otherwise he got off Scott free.
Karma came though; he developed Parkinson very early. Friend of mine used to dispense his medication and said he was a shadow of what he had been.
He volunteered to try monkey gland injections as a treatment iirc
I’d imagine if you tried injecting a gorillas glands Parkinson’s wouldn’t really be a problem for much longer!
you can tax assets or income. that is it. incomes are going to be highly depressed for some time. you can tinker with the long needed NI/Income Tax merger and do away with all the absurdities. but to raise the huge slabs of cash needed they will have to go after assets.
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Are we going to tax public sector final salary pensions in any such windfall at their proper current actuarial value not the lower fictional sleight of hand that they’re valued at now?
public sector pensions are different, there is no 'pot'. but to keep everything 'fair' you just say all schemes now pay out at 90% what they would have done.
How about instead we convert public sector pensions to defined contribution and limit employer contributions to same rate as private pensioners normally get, a 2/3 cut in all public sector pensions would save us a fortune
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Hmm. So you are saying that printing money is OK as long as we all do it. I`ll have to mull that one over.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That will not be a consequence free policy. The electorate will, rightly, demand stringent measures to ensure it never happens again.
among those will be a complete shake up of relations with China
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
They *should* be & I’d happily vote for an FDP style party (although that’s probably 5-10% of the electorate at most). Increasing they appear to be an SDP/Labour mini me.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
And a NHS doctor tells me we are not at peak yet......
I think next week we hopefully reach peak.
If it Carrys on growing after that we are screwed. I think we will sqweak through hopefully thanks to the extra capacity which is the major triumph of the Government/NHS who deserve great praise for that.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
You should tell the authorities.
I hope that`s not a serious comment, though suspect that it is.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
So what it’s irrelevant the building just needs to be fit for purpose.
Beauty is irrelevant? Beauty is everything in an ugly world.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is also subject to fashion.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
BREAKING: SPAIN’S CORONAVIRUS DEATH RATE INCREASES AFTER YESTERDAY’S 19-DAY LOW BUT INFECTION RATE DROPS
AFTER three straight days of decline, Spain’s daily coronavirus death rate has increased this morning with 619 registered deaths. It’s up from the 510 recorded yesterday, which had represented a 19-day low. Some 16,972 people have now lost their lives to the disease in Spain. Meanwhile the number of confirmed cases has increased by 4,167 to reach a total of 166,019. However the number of recorded new cases has dropped from the 4,830 reported on Saturday. Meanwhile, the number of recovered COVID-19 sufferers stands at 62,391 as of Sunday morning. It means 3,282 people were rid of the disease in the last 24 hours. The number of recovered patients and new infections continue their general trend of becoming closer, suggesting Spain is continuing to flatten the curve of its epidemic. Source: Olive Press
There`s a lot of noise in the one day figures. The three day and seven day moving averages are of more use I think.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Hmm. So you are saying that printing money is OK as long as we all do it. I`ll have to mull that one over.
It would be a co-ordinated global response to a completely exogenous shock, which is exactly what this is - we should think of it as akin to an alien invasion that destroys cities and paralyses economies through no fault of their own. An extraordinary solution seems justified in this case.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
Of course there is a transaction.
A transaction involves transfer of money for something in return. Value is created and the government received a share of that value.
Is the government line of “ sorry if people feel “ ...... because of possible legal action if they actually say sorry to NHS workers or is it just trying to avoid accepting blame .
Because clearly no10 has decided this is now the official line which will be parroted by the cabinet .
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
That is not the trade off.
The trade off is lives lost to Corona versus lives lost to the depression that would follow an extended lockdown. labour has spent the last decade saying austerity cost lives.
Not as much as economic depression. Not nearly as much. not even close.
In a worst case scenario, sterling could suffer an enormous plunger in value, making the drugs for all sorts of treatments too expensive.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
We soon wont be able to afford the NHS - or at best will send our children to penury for a decade to pay off borrowing.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
So what it’s irrelevant the building just needs to be fit for purpose.
Beauty is irrelevant? Beauty is everything in an ugly world.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is also subject to fashion.
Please. If you think Enric Miralles comes within a million miles of Robert Adam, then no one can help you.
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
Hmm. So you are saying that printing money is OK as long as we all do it. I`ll have to mull that one over.
It would be a co-ordinated global response to a completely exogenous shock, which is exactly what this is - we should think of it as akin to an alien invasion that destroys cities and paralyses economies through no fault of their own. An extraordinary solution seems justified in this case.
You can't magic back wealth that has been destroyed; you can only (re)distribute the losses.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
I do not have the arcane knowledge to explain why this will not work, so will rely on a little saying. Most of these are nonsense, of course, but this one isn't. This one holds for all things in all circumstances -
If something looks too good to be true, it isn't true.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
That is not the trade off.
The trade off is lives lost to Corona versus lives lost to the depression that would follow an extended lockdown. labour has spent the last decade saying austerity cost lives.
Not as much as economic depression. Not nearly as much. not even close.
In a worst case scenario, sterling could suffer an enormous plunger in value, making the drugs for all sorts of treatments too expensive.
Now that really might cost half a million lives.
I'll stick with Boris' programme thankyou. I hope when he is back in the saddle he will too!
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
Nobody is thinking half a million. Not even the bloke who said it would be half a million
I see that John Prine has died of the dreaded lurgy. He wasn't much older than me but he only had one lung so I suppose it's not a shock.
I still remember nearly fifty years ago hearing him sing "Sam Stone." for the first time.
Not your usual Vietnam protest song …
"Sam Stone came home, To the wife and family After serving in the conflict overseas. And the time that he served, Had shattered all his nerves, And left a little shrapnel in his knees. But the morphine eased the pain, And the grass grew round his brain, And gave him all the confidence he lacked, With a purple heart and a monkey on his back."
There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes, Jesus Christ died for nothin, I suppose. Little pitchers have big ears, Don't stop to count the years, Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios."
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
I do not have the arcane knowledge to explain why this will not work, so will rely on a little saying. Most of these are nonsense, of course, but this one isn't. This one holds for all things in all circumstances -
If something looks too good to be true, it isn't true.
Then why on earth do you believe in socialism? It's the ultimate exemplar of that saying.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
You’d rather discourage earning ?
No. But personally I would tax houses more. Let’s keep it simple. Move all the Corona spending into a single bucket. No idea how much it is, but say £500bn. Have that owned by the Bank of England - and charging interest at, say, 2%.
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
That will not be a consequence free policy. The electorate will, rightly, demand stringent measures to ensure it never happens again.
among those will be a complete shake up of relations with China
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
Nobody is thinking half a million. Not even the bloke who said it would be half a million
You repeat the same lines over and over. A troll. Ignore.
A life lived long and well. And wholly without DRS.
On the contrary. In 1958 he appealed against a disqualification for reversing on the track, and got the decision overturned and second place reinstated.
The punchline is that it wasn’t his disqualification he was cross about, it was Mike Hawthorn’s.
Hawthorn beat him to the World Championship by one point as a result.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
I've seen the Scottish Parliament. I remember that I kept looking for a while after I had found it, because I couldn't believe that in a city of such incredible, historic architecture, crafted by some of the all-time masters of the art, they had chosen to house their Parliament in a hideous sports centre...
That is Labour for you , no class. Done out of spite and Scottish architects ignored out of pure dogma. They have a lot to answer for and have truly had their just desserts, one diddy MP left and he is a true Tory.
We remain a relatively wealthy country. We can afford to pay more tax. So long as the burden falls on those who are doing more than just about managing, the consequent fall in living standards will not push people into poverty.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
What makes you think half a million is a maximum? The Black Death took out about a third of the population of Europe at the time, killing about 25m or so. If they had understood the cause and implemented the appropriate measures we might have got away with less than a million.
On the bright side, you could say that the disease led to changes in the social structure that prepared the ground for the huge advances of the next few centuries. Perhaps C-19 will help us similarly?
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
The implication that both yourself and Contrarian are making is a spike in fatalities is worth it to save the economy. You are thus tacitly making the bold assumption that you will both survive an immediate curtailment of lockdown to get the economy back on track.
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
We have a spike in fatalities.
You call 10,000 deaths a spike? Think half a million.
Nobody is thinking half a million. Not even the bloke who said it would be half a million
What percentage of people do you think would catch the virus in an uncontrolled epidemic and what do you think the fatality rate would be? Even at 60% and 0.5% you're looking at over 200,000 deaths.
Serious question - for an unprecedented catastrophe affecting the entire world, why can't we all come to an agreed figure for what losses each country has incurred at the end of the crisis, then have all the finance ministers and central bankers sit down at their computers, press the 'Print Money' button to deposit said agreed sum back into their public treasuries, and then carry on as if it never happened? Every country would benefit, and only a limited relative advantage would be gained, so why not?
I do not have the arcane knowledge to explain why this will not work, so will rely on a little saying. Most of these are nonsense, of course, but this one isn't. This one holds for all things in all circumstances -
If something looks too good to be true, it isn't true.
It depends what you are solving for.
This preserves the relative position of countries but likely causes asset price inflation.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Chuka is probably already plotting to be Foreign Secretary in a Labour-LD coalition government after the next general election, then to become Macron to Starmer's Hollande
The Lib Dems lost an irreplaceable mentor when Paddy Ashdown died.
Now they need to find a distinctive Liberal and Democratic policy on the only relevant issue - the National Health Service.
First thing they need are some liberal and democratic people leading the party. Rennie in Scotland is shocking , totally and utterly useless, totally undemocratic and anything but liberal. A tool of the first order. You have Carmichael, convicted of being a mendacious lying toerag by a court, yet he is kept in place. It si no wonder they are circling the drain.
We remain a relatively wealthy country. We can afford to pay more tax. So long as the burden falls on those who are doing more than just about managing, the consequent fall in living standards will not push people into poverty.
Those just about managing always get hit by tax increases, there are not enough higher rate tax payers to make up the money needed so the basic rate will be raised
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
What about those who have gained wealth without doing anything other than being born into the right family?
They will be taxed on the income that wealth generates.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
My guess is that your brother does not rely solely on that £1,500 annual income.
No, of course not. He receives a decent six figure salary from the company (but works there full time). He pays income tax on it, like everyone else on PAYE.
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Yes does anyone know what his plans are ? Chuka politically has gone from a major player , to not in the game.
I've missed most of the debate this morning which is a pity as a topic close to me. I agree with the premise that the LibDems are going to struggle - their biggest error is leaving a pair of acting leaders one of whom no-one outside the party have heard of, and the other is the guy rejected by the party membership less than a year ago. To cancel the planned leadership election until 2021 is absurd.
I wish them well...
Are you back on board, Comrade?
I thought the replacement of the rainbow bird with SKS might have been a clue...
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
Maybe you got it wrong a second time.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Others can make their own minds up. Was I wrong to disown Corbyn and all he stood for? No. Was joining the LibDems when I did wrong? Possibly. Either way, I realised about a month back that the LibDems probably wasn't where I was going to stay as I just couldn't get into who they are - or think they are. When you've done one thing for 25 years and suddenly start doing another thing its going to take time. Once I realised my heart wasn't in it I stopped making the effort.
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
Sir Keir Starmer looks and sounds PM material. Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
I said as much earlier on this morning
Really feels like someone turned the Labour party off and on again, for a restart.
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
That's perhaps what they should for. What they seem to be for is Europe and transsexuals. Which is ground the Labour Party often seemz keen to cover.
If Ed Davey rather than Layla Moran is confirmed as next LD leader then the LDs will indeed be economically liberal and fiscally conservative and with less emphasis on 'woke' social issues while keeping the desire to be closely aligned with the EU/EEA.
That would reflect the fact most LD target seats now are held by the Tories in wealthy parts of London and the South
Neither Davey or Moran appeal to me - Davey for fiscal conservatism and Moran for her wokeness. The other choice for leader is Daisy Cooper. But I don't know where she stands on these issues. There is a year to find out. She was at 8s for next leader on Betfair as this blog started. I note that she is now on 1.2. All the cash above 1.2 to 8 has been taken.
Comments
As I say, exceptional times - not sure what choice they have.
For Moss the manner in which the battle was fought was as important as the outcome, and this sporting attitude cost him the 1958 World Championship when he stood up for rival Mike Hawthorn, who faced a penalty in Portugal that would, in retrospect, have denied him the points that he needed to beat Moss. Stirling never for one moment entertained any thought of gaining an advantage in such a way, and in any case his natural sense of justice would not have allowed him to see Hawthorn unjustly penalized. So he stepped forward to defend him. Hawthorn subsequently went on to beat Moss by a mere point, even though he had only won one race that year to Moss's four.
I wish them well...
AFTER three straight days of decline, Spain’s daily coronavirus death rate has increased this morning with 619 registered deaths.
It’s up from the 510 recorded yesterday, which had represented a 19-day low.
Some 16,972 people have now lost their lives to the disease in Spain.
Meanwhile the number of confirmed cases has increased by 4,167 to reach a total of 166,019.
However the number of recorded new cases has dropped from the 4,830 reported on Saturday.
Meanwhile, the number of recovered COVID-19 sufferers stands at 62,391 as of Sunday morning.
It means 3,282 people were rid of the disease in the last 24 hours.
The number of recovered patients and new infections continue their general trend of becoming closer, suggesting Spain is continuing to flatten the curve of its epidemic.
Source: Olive Press
That would reflect the fact most LD target seats now are held by the Tories in wealthy parts of London and the South
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52256951
Perhaps not the best time for a diabetes annual review, but patients can have it if they are concerned.
They are staying away though. Rightly so too.
Where as the cautious person who invests his money to buy a family home, saves to help their kids with their 40k salary gets clobbered with tax because they have "wealth"
Not sure that is what should be encouraged
Can;t pay, won't pay.
I
A-ha!
Time to play some suitable music for Easter Sunday: something by The Bodysnatchers
Tax 1% annually on the value of the houses. Explicitly branded as Corona tax. After about 12 years the debt will have been repaid.
Current spending should be funded from current taxation. It may be that governments will want to increase current spending but that is something there should be a political debate about, not something that should be muddled with an exceptional one time cost
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42755139
among those will be a complete shake up of relations with China
If they are not distinct then what’s the point?
Not what I envisaged even a month ago. But times change, and I'm always open to putting my hand up and saying "I got this wrong"
A thriving economy is no good to any of us who find themselves six feet under through a casual response to Covid-19.
I wonder if Chuka has regrets? Remember him?
Because clearly no10 has decided this is now the official line which will be parroted by the cabinet .
The trade off is lives lost to Corona versus lives lost to the depression that would follow an extended lockdown. labour has spent the last decade saying austerity cost lives.
Not as much as economic depression. Not nearly as much. not even close.
In a worst case scenario, sterling could suffer an enormous plunger in value, making the drugs for all sorts of treatments too expensive.
Now that really might cost half a million lives.
We soon wont be able to afford the NHS - or at best will send our children to penury for a decade to pay off borrowing.
Time for tough choices.
My brother is an unusual case. He purchased a 25% stake in a private company at par value (about £30,000). He derives a £1,500 annual income from those share.
If the company was ever to be sold then the market value would be meaningful in excess of the purchase price. But he can’t sell his shares independently because each of the other shareholders has a first right of refusal at par value.
So how wealthy is he actually?
As for returning to Labour, whilst SKS has a lot to do he has at least made a positive start. And once my friends in Labour put the feelers out about my return I started thinking about it actively. Won't be an easy ride, I know I've put a few people out locally and won't be trusted by others. Whatever. I can come back in, roll my sleeves up and get on with pushing the loons out now that their death grip on the party has been broken.
If something looks too good to be true, it isn't true.
Now they need to find a distinctive Liberal and Democratic policy on the only relevant issue - the National Health Service.
I still remember nearly fifty years ago hearing him sing "Sam Stone." for the first time.
Not your usual Vietnam protest song …
"Sam Stone came home,
To the wife and family
After serving in the conflict overseas.
And the time that he served,
Had shattered all his nerves,
And left a little shrapnel in his knees.
But the morphine eased the pain,
And the grass grew round his brain,
And gave him all the confidence he lacked,
With a purple heart and a monkey on his back."
There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes,
Jesus Christ died for nothin, I suppose.
Little pitchers have big ears,
Don't stop to count the years,
Sweet songs never last too long on broken radios."
They certainly don't.
--AS
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249154786232020993?s=19
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249152785293205506?s=19
The punchline is that it wasn’t his disqualification he was cross about, it was Mike Hawthorn’s.
Hawthorn beat him to the World Championship by one point as a result.
And Moss didn’t care.
What a legend.
On the bright side, you could say that the disease led to changes in the social structure that prepared the ground for the huge advances of the next few centuries. Perhaps C-19 will help us similarly?
This preserves the relative position of countries but likely causes asset price inflation.
Even my father a life long Conservative says it is good to see an impressive leader of the opposition.
You have Carmichael, convicted of being a mendacious lying toerag by a court, yet he is kept in place. It si no wonder they are circling the drain.
https://twitter.com/jackson_carlaw/status/1249286094857928704?s=21
But the market value of his shares would be meaningfully in excess of his salary.
It’s not easy to define wealth. The easy answer is to say he is wealthy based on his ownership stake in the company. But he can’t sell the shares and he doesn’t derive much income from them. So is he really wealthy?
Chuka politically has gone from a major player , to not in the game.
No real interest because by the time you plucked it, removed the bones and the wings, there'd be very little meat left. Pangolins next?
I recall doing this about a year back - how "Dad's Army" would have voted in the Ref - and I had Jones as not only a Leaver but a No Deal ultra.
Brussels, they don't like it up em.