Have to say, if this is the result now and Brexit mess is still to come, I can see this achieving over 60% support
I do wonder why so many people are so convinced a "Brexit mess" is coming. I predict it will be as ephemeral as the widely predicted "drunken carnage" last night.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
Yes, and I have heard similar from other analysts. It is some reassurance. But I don’t see it on the street. Consumer spending seems permanently dented - whether from fear of going outside; renewed prudency; or increased economic insecurity.
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
The important thing to to legalise, control and regulate the entire supply chain. From the farming to the user.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Any middle manager still on furlough should be seriously worried.
Within a decade, there will be no middle managers. Investment Banks will look like this :
There will be
Technologists - developers, data scientists. Traders Sales
Team leads - People running the above Top management - *maybe* 2 layers.
The gap will be filled by automated data aggregation/collection systems.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Doesn't seem stupid to me. Getting people back to take orders first and then to bring back others afterwards seems entirely logical to me. Better than bringing everyone back in one go and have them twiddling their thumbs.
And for smart employers this is a unique opportunity to smartly bring people back slowly and find out exactly who is required and who is surplus to requirements in a way that can't normally be done. Not a good time to be someone your employer doesn't hold in high regard I suspect!
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
Michael Gove agrees with you on legalising cocaine, I believe.
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
Michael Gove agrees with you on legalising cocaine, I believe.
I don't think he does unfortunately. I think he should.
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
Michael Gove agrees with you on legalising cocaine, I believe.
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Whom would you rather see in charge, as a matter of interest? And do they have any skeletons in or out of cupbaords, such as Jackie Baillie's support for Trident, which might not go down well in the members' election?
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
The important thing to to legalise, control and regulate the entire supply chain. From the farming to the user.
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
Michael Gove agrees with you on legalising cocaine, I believe.
Is that the Government line?
I will get my coat.....
White lines matter.
(apologies, I think somebody posted that a while ago)
The basic problem for the Lib Dems is that Davey and Moran shouldn't be in the same party. Moran is a raging identity politics lefty who seems like she would fit in with Corbynite Labour and Davey would be better making a stand in the Tory party and taking it back to Cameron politics.
People have realised that the party can't stand up to the rigours of government, they have too many internal contradictions and incompatible policies from both wings of the party.
Until the yellows decide to be one or the other wing they will be struggling to get to into the teens. Out of the EU, I'd vote for the Liberal party, I might even join it. I'd never join or vote for a political movement that people like @RochdalePioneers calls home. Therein lies the problem.
All political parties above a certain size have to be a coalition of different ideas - because there are so many different ideas. This is true of the Conservatives and Labour, probably to a greater extent than the Lib Dems. It isn't at all surprising that at either extreme (on a left-right axis) that the Lib Dems will overlap with the two other parties.
What parties need to have is a minimal set of common ideas that they agree on which sets them apart from the other parties. For Labour I would argue that it is the basic idea that the free market sees the strong prey on the weak, and the weak can use the power of the state to protect them. For the Tories it's a bit trickier for me to come up with what this unifying idea is, because I am so used to being critical of them. Perhaps it is that only individuals can help themselves, because only individuals know what help they want, and so the state should stay out of the way as much as possible.
This sets up a fairly clear divide. On the one hand Labour will always argue that "something must be done", while Tories will instinctively argue that "if we do something it will make things worse".
I'm not sure where the Lib Dems fit in to this. People will always wonder whose side they are on. They need to be able to define a third side, in opposition to the two that I have identified, but I don't see the space for one. Maybe, through the process of writing this comment I've come to realise that I agree with the one I was replying to.
VERY crudely, I would say those on the right prioritise equality of opportunity, those on the left equality of outcome.
It is very easy to find counter examples on both sides as politics is the art of the possible, (and of course giving the people you want to vote for you what they think they want plays a big part) but that seems to me the fundamental difference; both want a fair society but disagree about the definition of “fair”.
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
Michael Gove agrees with you on legalising cocaine, I believe.
Is that the Government line?
I will get my coat.....
White lines matter.
(apologies, I think somebody posted that a while ago)
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Whom would you rather see in charge, as a matter of interest? And do they have any skeletons in or out of cupbaords, such as Jackie Baillie's support for Trident, which might not go down well in the members' election?
Sarwar. And get rid of Trident in favour of a quantum computing capability in Glasgow.
As noted upthread, they are already embedded. If they are siphoning off data from the broadband network, it already happened.
There is an argument to be made that it might be better to limit them in future, but that doesn't change the fact that we are only doing it now because the Brexiteers can't afford to upset the Americans
Stop Brexit has already flown but once you take that out the paucity of ambition is painful. A penny for the NHS (again). 20k more teachers. Well, its a nice round number. Free childcare. They should ask the Scottish government how that works or doesn't. 80% of energy from renewables by 2030. Presumably all campaigns against windfarms etc are to be banned. A tax on frequent flyers. Seems a bit irrelevant right now.
It doesn't exactly set the pulse racing does it? Given the lack of interest I genuinely don't know if either of the candidates have come up with anything better.
I agree with those down thread that say that Green is a way for the Lib Dems to go. Some of their former policies already fit that theme and they could add things like rapid build out of electrical charging point infrastructure in city centres with an early target for the banning of diesel and petrol vehicles everywhere air quality targets are being threatened.
Legalisation of drugs is one policy the LibDems could go for.
I believe legalising cannabis is already party policy, other drugs not yet.
Legalising them is an excellent liberal idea I would wholeheartedly support. I'd go as far as legalising cocaine too.
Which is not to say I support people taking it or think it's a good idea to take it - it's stupid. But if it's going to be sold better by legitimate businesses without quality control and licensing regulations and safeguarding regulations (and taxes) than gangsters with knives and guns.
The important thing to to legalise, control and regulate the entire supply chain. From the farming to the user.
Agreed 100%. Be good for global security and potentially balance of payments too getting it developed by a Diageo style business rather than Columbian or Afghani gangs associated with terrorist groups.
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Very good!
We all need a good laugh sometimes. That was very amusing.
He's right about Leonard though. SLAB have had quite a few terrible leaders in the past decade, but Leonard is arguably the worst of the lot. He's just a complete and utter irrelevance.
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Whom would you rather see in charge, as a matter of interest? And do they have any skeletons in or out of cupbaords, such as Jackie Baillie's support for Trident, which might not go down well in the members' election?
Sarwar. And get rid of Trident in favour of a quantum physics capability in Glasgow.
Hmm. Would he win? He had problems in 2017 when he lost to Mr Leonard, and I'm not sure he has remedied them completely.
That's true for all countries, not just the UK, and the EU is powerless* to stop what is happening.
The US has not presented a credible case that Huawei's kit is insecure, and the UK's own assessment does not concur, so instead the US is making Huawei's business impossible, or at least so problematic that customers will not want to risk ordering from them.
If Huawei can't buy chips from the likes of Intel and AMD (for servers), or the likes of Broadcom (for routers), and can't buy tools for designing hardware, and can't get chips manufactured as the US goverment leans on the likes of TSMC, and can't license IP from the likes of ARM, then Huawei is pretty much stuffed, and nobody outside of China is going to buy Huawei kit given the likely supply problems.
This is bad news for the UK, as it means we will pay more for arguably worse kit from the two remaining viable suppliers of 5G equipment. Which in turn will make our networks more homogenous and less secure.
The long term solution is more open standards and a much greater diversity of suppliers, but we are many, many years away from that being viable.
* About the only thing the EU could plausibly do in the short term is some sort of tit-for-tat action against US companies, but that would not end well, it would simply accelerate the technological Balkanisation that is occuring.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
Any tax that most of those polled don’t think they will have to pay will be popular. It would become less so if you asked what people think about a tax on their pension pots...
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
Slight problem - he was reported as advising people to vote Tory rather than Labour to keep the SNP out, so long as Tories voted Labour in constituencies such as his own, naturally. Interview with the Graun in 2017.
Also, he's a Westminster MP. Not exactly FM material therefore.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
Titbit: I hadn't noticed until checking Lib Dem required swings this AM after this interesting piece (thanks) that Labour now has a majority of women amongst its MPs.
On-topic. If Daisy Cooper is sensible she will spend her entire first term digging in.
This actually wouldn't be a terrible idea. 1st Division has just become a repository for half the army's infantry battalions with zero logistical, comms, engineering or artillery support. So what's the fucking point of it? It can't be deployed for anything other than brawling in pubs.
Incidentally, I looked through that Epstein address book someone posted on here and was not that surprised to find that I knew personally a number of the people listed and even less surprised to find that I have investigated one, for alleged corruption of public officials.
Boring as it may seem I am rather more interested in how Epstein made - and kept - his money. He seems to have risen without trace.
The sorts of people who were friendly with Epstein are exactly the sorts of people you would *expect* to be friendly with him.
The odd thing is (going solely by his wikipedia entry) is that he lost huge amounts of money on numerous occasions. Perhaps his fortune was nowhere near what people thought it was.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
And of course they do not have a national house builder
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
And of course they do not have a national house builder
And sometimes governments have to make unpopular decisions
Government by opinion poll is barking
Irrelevant. If people are scared they won't go out and spend money. That is why we're - I believe - very screwed.
No we are not.
The economy may surprise you
If people aren't going out to spend money as I demonstrated to you with the poll that people are scared, we are screwed.
As usual something that doesn't agree with you, you just ignore.
Talking to you is almost a waste of time and I have almost ran out of patience with you quite frankly.
I am not fazed about that but if you saw the economic activity yesterday and the activity I have witnessed locally the economy will see the beginning of a recovery
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
There is a great need for social and low cost housing - a Government, either directly or via local councils, quangos and Housing Associations is in a better position to supply that demand than the private sector.
And if you want evidence of that look at the housing benefit bill..
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
And of course they do not have a national house builder
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
That is a southern England problem. There’s no shortage of housing here in the North East. There’s plenty of land and tens of thousands of homes are being built.
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
The state has no capacity for building homes
I’m not sure that’s quite true. There’s a clear profit to be made building homes, and thus if the Government did have a “national house-builder” it would likely be profitable.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
And of course they do not have a national house builder
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
Incidentally, I looked through that Epstein address book someone posted on here and was not that surprised to find that I knew personally a number of the people listed and even less surprised to find that I have investigated one, for alleged corruption of public officials.
Boring as it may seem I am rather more interested in how Epstein made - and kept - his money. He seems to have risen without trace.
The sorts of people who were friendly with Epstein are exactly the sorts of people you would *expect* to be friendly with him.
The odd thing is (going solely by his wikipedia entry) is that he lost huge amounts of money on numerous occasions. Perhaps his fortune was nowhere near what people thought it was.
One plausible explanation for Epstein's wealth is that he basically ran a tracker fund. His cronies would invest in Epstein's fund, so he'd rake off management fees and the investors would be richer as the market always went up.
Given that he and Maxwell procured a string of underage girls there are of course alternative possibilities?
The question was how Epstein made money. I cannot rule out that the reason the wealthy invested in Epstein's fund was sex, though in truth I suspect it was less about rubbing 17-year-olds and more about rubbing shoulders with the elite: royalty, presidents and billionaires.
But how did he get into the position of having a fund in the first place?
58% of Tory voters in England believe the UK government should not grant Scotland an indyref2 despite Brexit as the important issues are 'all or mostly the same'. Scottish Tory voters believe Boris should block indyref2 by a huge 85% to 13% margin.
Overall 42% of English voters believe Boris should block indyref2, 37% think he should allow it according to the details of the Panelbase poll
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Any middle manager still on furlough should be seriously worried.
What about the flunkey of a middle manager? Asking for a friend.
58% of Tory voters in England believe the UK government should not grant Scotland an indyref2 despite Brexit as the important issues are 'all or mostly the same'
Overall 42% of English voters believe Boris should block indyref2, 37% think he should allow it according to the details of the Panelbase poll
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
On one level yes your wealth is the current value less loan amount - however the property will one day by yours so it's no great leap to say you should be taxed on it's current market value..
And if you want to pay less tax buy a different (cheaper) property
This actually wouldn't be a terrible idea. 1st Division has just become a repository for half the army's infantry battalions with zero logistical, comms, engineering or artillery support. So what's the fucking point of it? It can't be deployed for anything other than brawling in pubs.
That could be very necessary if the worst predictions of lockdown easing chaos come to pass. Good pub brawlers could swing the tide.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
Ok. I largely think any wealth tax should be levied on the full value of your property for practical reasons, but if you want to levy it only is on the un-mortgaged equity - obviously that is easy to work out too.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
Ok. I largely think any wealth tax should be levied on the full value of your property for practical reasons, but if you want to levy it only is on the un-mortgaged equity - obviously that is easy to work out too.
Complexity creates loopholes - so you really should make things as simple as possible.
Taxing on current market value is the sanest approach
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
I think another weakness in BlackRook's analysis - and it is an interesting one, and I'm not doing it down as a whole, just adding to it - is that it does not take into account 2014-2015 when the Tory response to winning INdyref was to downgrade Scottish MPs at Westminster the vcery next morning, and to regard the existence of elected Scottish MPs in Westminster, taking part in coalition politics, as somehow inherently illegitimate (photoshopped photos of Mr Miliband in Mr Salmond's pocket). Those were certainly not acts of the Scottish C&UP, but the Scots Tories got some of the blame - and partly fairly in that they supported them.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
Ok. I largely think any wealth tax should be levied on the full value of your property for practical reasons, but if you want to levy it only is on the un-mortgaged equity - obviously that is easy to work out too.
You and @eek make good points, I was merely playing devil’s advocate. What percentage of the property value is such a tax likely to be? 1% for example would be much higher than my current council tax liability, which I’m currently exempt from anyway due to my student status.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Doesn't seem stupid to me. Getting people back to take orders first and then to bring back others afterwards seems entirely logical to me. Better than bringing everyone back in one go and have them twiddling their thumbs.
And for smart employers this is a unique opportunity to smartly bring people back slowly and find out exactly who is required and who is surplus to requirements in a way that can't normally be done. Not a good time to be someone your employer doesn't hold in high regard I suspect!
It is stupid when you have orders backing up, failing to be delivered etc, because the couple of secretaries in the office aren't actually capable of running a business that normally has orders of magnitude more staff.
Apparently un-furloghing, say 5 at a time, is a concept beyond these people.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Is it? My most important asset is my education, training and experience.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
Ok. I largely think any wealth tax should be levied on the full value of your property for practical reasons, but if you want to levy it only is on the un-mortgaged equity - obviously that is easy to work out too.
Two of the best ways of taxing property wealth are:-
1. Having more council tax bands at the higher end. 2. Abolishing the PPR exemption from CGT and levying it when a house is sold. No arguments then about not having the money to pay or value etc - both of which are an issue with an annual wealth tax.
I know there is also LVT but I don’t know enough about it to comment.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Is it? My most important asset is my education, training and experience.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
To be a PB pedant, the Scots had recently had a major revaluation (which was one reason the Poll Tax's initial imposition in Sxotland only was so badly received).
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Is it? My most important asset is my education, training and experience.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
I think a wealth tax should be aimed at the 40-50% of assets owned by the top 1% or even the 5-15% owned by the top 0.01%, at those levels it should be clear that education, training and experience are not the main drivers.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Whom would you rather see in charge, as a matter of interest? And do they have any skeletons in or out of cupbaords, such as Jackie Baillie's support for Trident, which might not go down well in the members' election?
Sarwar. And get rid of Trident in favour of a quantum physics capability in Glasgow.
Hmm. Would he win? He had problems in 2017 when he lost to Mr Leonard, and I'm not sure he has remedied them completely.
Trident is of course reserved to Westminster ...
What SLAB need right now is someone who comes across as human and is likeable. What about Daniel Johnson (the Edinburgh Southern MSP)?
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Try that here. Council tax is based on 1991 valuations. I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Try that here. Council tax is based on 1991 valuations. I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
The way to do these things is to giveth at the same time as takeaway.
Abolish stamp duty and council tax.
Replace with a *progressive* wealth tax that brings approximately the same.
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
I'm pretty sceptical the SCON vote is moving directly to the SNP. I think it's more a case of unionists leaving them for SLAB, but SLAB are shedding more pro-indy voters to the SNP. Hence why the SLAB vote share is roughly the same.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Try that here. Council tax is based on 1991 valuations. I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
It is fiscal policy’s answer to “rotten boroughs”. Indefensible, except that people say it might be unpopular.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Is it? My most important asset is my education, training and experience.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
To be a PB pedant, the Scots had recently had a major revaluation (which was one reason the Poll Tax's initial imposition in Sxotland only was so badly received).
Wasn't the Scottish rates revaluation of 1986 the main reason the Conservatives did badly in 1987 ?
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
I think another weakness in BlackRook's analysis - and it is an interesting one, and I'm not doing it down as a whole, just adding to it - is that it does not take into account 2014-2015 when the Tory response to winning INdyref was to downgrade Scottish MPs at Westminster the vcery next morning, and to regard the existence of elected Scottish MPs in Westminster, taking part in coalition politics, as somehow inherently illegitimate (photoshopped photos of Mr Miliband in Mr Salmond's pocket). Those were certainly not acts of the Scottish C&UP, but the Scots Tories got some of the blame - and partly fairly in that they supported them.
An then the Westminster Tories doubled down in 2017. Ruth Davidson got 12 Tory MPs elected in Scotland, only for their views to be totally ignored in favour of those of the DUP.
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
Irrelevant. Different parts of the country have, at different times, suffered from the "Governments we didn't vote for" problem. Here in Eastern England (population: about the same as Scotland) we had the reverse problem: the thirteen years of Blair and Brown was a succession of "Governments we didn't vote for" but had to put up with anyway.
The point is that the useless Unionists failed to come up with a proper response to this problem. It would've been perfectly legitimate to argue that it is impossible for the whole country to have what it votes for at the same time, but that this alone is no good reason for smashing it to pieces (does the fact that the wishes of the Central Belt will always outweigh those of the Highlands necessitate the creation of a Caithness & Sutherland Independence Party, for example?) Thus, there was nothing wrong with the unitary state that existed prior to 1999, or at any rate nothing that couldn't have been solved with more powers for local city and county councils, rather than setting up devolved Parliaments.
Alternatively, they could've argued for a federal state, saying that there should be a greater say for Scotland in its own affairs but that this can only work if the same is done for all the nations of the UK, so that every MP and every voter continues to enjoy equal rights as under the unitary system.
They didn't do either. They insisted on a dog's breakfast.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Any middle manager still on furlough should be seriously worried.
What about the flunkey of a middle manager? Asking for a friend.
Does the flunkey do the middle manager's actual work ?
Comments
https://a-broad-in-london.com/blog/2019/4/17/harrods-the-secrets-inside-the-most-beautiful-amp-famous-store-in-the-world
There will be
Technologists - developers, data scientists.
Traders
Sales
Team leads - People running the above
Top management - *maybe* 2 layers.
The gap will be filled by automated data aggregation/collection systems.
And for smart employers this is a unique opportunity to smartly bring people back slowly and find out exactly who is required and who is surplus to requirements in a way that can't normally be done. Not a good time to be someone your employer doesn't hold in high regard I suspect!
You would have no concerns, none at all?
I will get my coat.....
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
We all need a good laugh sometimes. That was very amusing.
(apologies, I think somebody posted that a while ago)
It is very easy to find counter examples on both sides as politics is the art of the possible, (and of course giving the people you want to vote for you what they think they want plays a big part) but that seems to me the fundamental difference; both want a fair society but disagree about the definition of “fair”.
There is an argument to be made that it might be better to limit them in future, but that doesn't change the fact that we are only doing it now because the Brexiteers can't afford to upset the Americans
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
Murray should go for it.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Trident is of course reserved to Westminster ...
The US has not presented a credible case that Huawei's kit is insecure, and the UK's own assessment does not concur, so instead the US is making Huawei's business impossible, or at least so problematic that customers will not want to risk ordering from them.
If Huawei can't buy chips from the likes of Intel and AMD (for servers), or the likes of Broadcom (for routers), and can't buy tools for designing hardware, and can't get chips manufactured as the US goverment leans on the likes of TSMC, and can't license IP from the likes of ARM, then Huawei is pretty much stuffed, and nobody outside of China is going to buy Huawei kit given the likely supply problems.
This is bad news for the UK, as it means we will pay more for arguably worse kit from the two remaining viable suppliers of 5G equipment. Which in turn will make our networks more homogenous and less secure.
The long term solution is more open standards and a much greater diversity of suppliers, but we are many, many years away from that being viable.
* About the only thing the EU could plausibly do in the short term is some sort of tit-for-tat action against US companies, but that would not end well, it would simply accelerate the technological Balkanisation that is occuring.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
Government by opinion poll is barking
The problem in the south is planning law, or the green belt.
The state has no business building homes...
Also, he's a Westminster MP. Not exactly FM material therefore.
If you’re talking about subsidised homes then well that’s a different conversation.
The economy may surprise you
On-topic. If Daisy Cooper is sensible she will spend her entire first term digging in.
As usual something that doesn't agree with you, you just ignore.
Talking to you is almost a waste of time and I have almost ran out of patience with you quite frankly.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
And if you want evidence of that look at the housing benefit bill..
Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Overall 42% of English voters believe Boris should block indyref2, 37% think he should allow it according to the details of the Panelbase poll
https://wingsoverscotland.com/shiny-beads-and-trinkets/
And if you want to pay less tax buy a different (cheaper) property
Taxing on current market value is the sanest approach
What percentage of the property value is such a tax likely to be? 1% for example would be much higher than my current council tax liability, which I’m currently exempt from anyway due to my student status.
Apparently un-furloghing, say 5 at a time, is a concept beyond these people.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
1. Having more council tax bands at the higher end.
2. Abolishing the PPR exemption from CGT and levying it when a house is sold. No arguments then about not having the money to pay or value etc - both of which are an issue with an annual wealth tax.
I know there is also LVT but I don’t know enough about it to comment.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1279740707922739201?s=20
Council tax is based on 1991 valuations.
I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
However, with local elections coming up next May, let's not forget that they are also 'The Dog Muck Party'.
Something not to be sniffed at.
Abolish stamp duty and council tax.
Replace with a *progressive* wealth tax that brings approximately the same.
Indefensible, except that people say it might be unpopular.
Ruth Davidson got 12 Tory MPs elected in Scotland, only for their views to be totally ignored in favour of those of the DUP.
The point is that the useless Unionists failed to come up with a proper response to this problem. It would've been perfectly legitimate to argue that it is impossible for the whole country to have what it votes for at the same time, but that this alone is no good reason for smashing it to pieces (does the fact that the wishes of the Central Belt will always outweigh those of the Highlands necessitate the creation of a Caithness & Sutherland Independence Party, for example?) Thus, there was nothing wrong with the unitary state that existed prior to 1999, or at any rate nothing that couldn't have been solved with more powers for local city and county councils, rather than setting up devolved Parliaments.
Alternatively, they could've argued for a federal state, saying that there should be a greater say for Scotland in its own affairs but that this can only work if the same is done for all the nations of the UK, so that every MP and every voter continues to enjoy equal rights as under the unitary system.
They didn't do either. They insisted on a dog's breakfast.