On topic: this is exactly what I was afraid of, now that we've crossed the Rubicon with the shops. In a few weeks' time, the news will be that everyone will be breathing through rags, everywhere outside their own homes, for the rest of our lives. All bloody day, every day, forever.
I spend my day working in a well ventilated and really very large laboratory space with one other bloke. The way the work stations are arranged even keeps us two meters apart the entire time - and we'll still both end up with rags strapped to our faces all damned day. And make no mistake, this is it: it will NEVER end. Even in the unlikely event that a fully effective vaccine is ever developed, this misery will be enforced for all time *just in case* something like Covid ever happens again, or for some similar such spurious justification.
No shopping without rags, no travelling without rags, no sunbathing without rags, no walking alone through the middle of an empty field without rags. And when you finally kick the bucket they'll probably tell your family to bury your corpse wearing a fucking rag.
I hate this country.
No. It’s not. I get you’re down and lashing out rhetorically. This isn’t being done for a love of masks. No matter whether or not some people decide that “No, there’s no other logic, it’s the State deciding for some bizarre reason that they want everyone masked because they’re baddies, don’t you know.
Masks will be compulsory in a handful of enclosed spaces for as long as needed against covid. When a vaccine is here, they’ll be gone like last year’s snow.
What if we don’t get an effective vaccine and it turns out immune response from infection fades after months?
There’s still a lot of complacency that this is all a dream that will abruptly end. It might not. And once behavioural changes have been made, they’re very hard to undo.
Why would we not get an effective vaccine?
167 credible and potentially successful projects in operation. 29 of those already begun Phase 1 trials. 12 have begun Phase 2 already. 3 are already in large scale Phase 3 efficacy trials.
The virus is well and truly on the less-challenging end of the spectrum of vaccination difficulty - as shown by the rapidity at which the above has been happening (plus the unparallelled surge of activity to achieve it).
The chances of us getting an effective vaccine are overwhelming. I'm not, I believe, known around here for overoptimistic denialism of things being serious. If anything, I'm usually accused (if at all) of going the other way.
So, sure, what if we don't get a vaccine? Or what if there's a Carrington Event with the Sun in the next few months and most electronic systems are wiped out? Or what if one of the supervolcanoes around the world erupts and places us in a multi-year winter?
All are possible, all are catastrophic, and all are low risk enough that I'm not going around wasting time worrying about them.
(To be honest, of those three, the Carrington Event is probably the least unlikely, but I'm still not spending too much time worrying about it).
I am confident that an effective vaccine can, or more precisely could be, found. I think people are maybe unrealistic that this vaccine can achieve its aim of painless herd immunity within a matter of months. A vaccine typically takes a decade to research, trial, certify, manufacture and universally adopt. Covid-19 is being run on an accelerated timeframe, which will hopefully feed into other vaccine programmes later on. Even so, I suspect it will take a couple of years, rather than a few months, to achieve full effectiveness. During which time Covid-19 will be running its deadly course.
I think the survival of high living standards (this is what is frankly at stake now) will be something of an incentive to speed up the timeline.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the British public hadn't been vaccinated by the spring.
Astra are delivering 30m doses of the Oxford vaccine by the end of September, they will be stored until the vaccine is approved and then there will be mass vaccination programmes across the whole country. Aiui by March there are 100m doses due to be delivered so by the end of 2020 the government may be in a position to have the whole nation vaccinated, even if it only buys us 6-12 months of immunity, we can just get a booster shot every so often until long term immunity is figured out or we eradicate it by giving it no available hosts.
As I've said many times, if there's one thing the government has done well, it's vaccines and securing priority access to a pretty wide range, even if it means spending money today in something that might not work.
A practical question. I bought a packet of 5 masks from the local pharmacy, labelled "medical disposable". What does disposable mean? Should I chuck it away after using it for 10 minutes, or when I see it's got dirty, or if I've had any symptoms, or what? Incidentally, they were £5, so if it really means "throw away after every use" then that's £365/year extra cost, which will be significant for many people.
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Masks don't make people feel safe.
The most vocal mandatory mask advocates I've spoken to in person still say they'll be worried and won't be shopping as much.
I hope I'm wrong, but my background in retail suggests to me that scaring the bejesus out of people and making shopping an uncomfortably experience will reduce in person shopping. Especially for non essentials.
That sounds likely to me.
I wonder how many of the mask obsessives are cowering in their homes or working from home / shopping online with no intention of going out in any case.
Depends on your personal psychology, doesn't it? If you're risk-averse, you'll probably not be keen on going out in general and you'll be in favour of public mask-wearing. The reverse being true for those more accepting of risk.
It may seem unfair, but by definition a second wave isn't going to be caused by the first category in any event; instead, it's most important to cut down transmission within the latter group who are likely to be out and about and less concerned about safety measures. It sucks, but there we are.
That's not true, I'm anti face nappy and I'm not risk averse.
Quite the opposite. I'm more than happy for the old normal to re-start tomorrow, because I'm satisfied the risks are extremely low, and the NHS should be able to cope.
The place is empty and all the extra capacity has been mothballed.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Don't worry: I'm completely unbothered by compulsory mask-wearing - to be more precise, I think they're an excellent public health intervention during the pandemic - but if they hike up CGT I'll be right there with you on the barricades!
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Masks don't make people feel safe.
The most vocal mandatory mask advocates I've spoken to in person still say they'll be worried and won't be shopping as much.
I hope I'm wrong, but my background in retail suggests to me that scaring the bejesus out of people and making shopping an uncomfortably experience will reduce in person shopping. Especially for non essentials.
That sounds likely to me.
I wonder how many of the mask obsessives are cowering in their homes or working from home / shopping online with no intention of going out in any case.
Depends on your personal psychology, doesn't it? If you're risk-averse, you'll probably not be keen on going out in general and you'll be in favour of public mask-wearing. The reverse being true for those more accepting of risk.
It may seem unfair, but by definition a second wave isn't going to be caused by the first category in any event; instead, it's most important to cut down transmission within the latter group who are likely to be out and about and less concerned about safety measures. It sucks, but there we are.
That's not true, I'm anti face nappy and I'm not risk averse.
Quite the opposite. I'm more than happy for the old normal to re-start tomorrow, because I'm satisfied the risks are extremely low, and the NHS should be able to cope.
The place is empty and all the extra capacity has been mothballed.
Do people call them face nappies because they talk shit?
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Masks don't make people feel safe.
The most vocal mandatory mask advocates I've spoken to in person still say they'll be worried and won't be shopping as much.
I hope I'm wrong, but my background in retail suggests to me that scaring the bejesus out of people and making shopping an uncomfortably experience will reduce in person shopping. Especially for non essentials.
It absolutely has and its a problem. People in shop are sticking to lists more than ever. Not wanting to browse. Not wanting to walk down any more aisles than they have to. And online shops are a pain in the bum for browsing, with supermarket systems set up to get people to reorder favourites.
We launched new products in April. They are really struggling because people aren't looking for new unless they have to. Whats more almost every new product launch this year is struggling for the same reasons. The grocery industry is scratching its head and wondering what the hell to do about it. I know of one major supermarket who is going to run its autumn range review event (fixed windows in the calendar where new products launch and the dross gets removed) and relaunch everything they launched in April...
It's odd that no supermarket has gone big on the Amazon approach of recommending similar things to those you have purchased previously, along the lines of "people who enjoyed this also enjoyed these...."
Understand how these retailers are set up. Its a Bricks and Mortar operation with online bolted onto the back. You can order whatever it offers online, but you can only receive the products that your local online pick store has ranged. Do they ensure that pick stores have the full range - or even consider it as something to focus on? No!
One example of online from a long-established player. Sainsburys decided to beat Tesco.com's market share with online. So they invested heavily. Hollowed out part of their Holborn HQ to install groovy IT developers zone complete with rad colours, creativity spaces with table football, a kind of stepped bowl where developers could sit and be presented to on a screen. Having done all that and hired the programmers did they offer an Amazon approach of recommending similar things? Yes! Does it work in practice? No! Because they pick orders from stores that don't have to stock the products you want never mind the "try this one" recommendation.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
On topic: this is exactly what I was afraid of, now that we've crossed the Rubicon with the shops. In a few weeks' time, the news will be that everyone will be breathing through rags, everywhere outside their own homes, for the rest of our lives. All bloody day, every day, forever.
I spend my day working in a well ventilated and really very large laboratory space with one other bloke. The way the work stations are arranged even keeps us two meters apart the entire time - and we'll still both end up with rags strapped to our faces all damned day. And make no mistake, this is it: it will NEVER end. Even in the unlikely event that a fully effective vaccine is ever developed, this misery will be enforced for all time *just in case* something like Covid ever happens again, or for some similar such spurious justification.
No shopping without rags, no travelling without rags, no sunbathing without rags, no walking alone through the middle of an empty field without rags. And when you finally kick the bucket they'll probably tell your family to bury your corpse wearing a fucking rag.
I hate this country.
No. It’s not. I get you’re down and lashing out rhetorically. This isn’t being done for a love of masks. No matter whether or not some people decide that “No, there’s no other logic, it’s the State deciding for some bizarre reason that they want everyone masked because they’re baddies, don’t you know.
Masks will be compulsory in a handful of enclosed spaces for as long as needed against covid. When a vaccine is here, they’ll be gone like last year’s snow.
What if we don’t get an effective vaccine and it turns out immune response from infection fades after months?
There’s still a lot of complacency that this is all a dream that will abruptly end. It might not. And once behavioural changes have been made, they’re very hard to undo.
Why would we not get an effective vaccine?
167 credible and potentially successful projects in operation. 29 of those already begun Phase 1 trials. 12 have begun Phase 2 already. 3 are already in large scale Phase 3 efficacy trials.
The virus is well and truly on the less-challenging end of the spectrum of vaccination difficulty - as shown by the rapidity at which the above has been happening (plus the unparallelled surge of activity to achieve it).
The chances of us getting an effective vaccine are overwhelming. I'm not, I believe, known around here for overoptimistic denialism of things being serious. If anything, I'm usually accused (if at all) of going the other way.
So, sure, what if we don't get a vaccine? Or what if there's a Carrington Event with the Sun in the next few months and most electronic systems are wiped out? Or what if one of the supervolcanoes around the world erupts and places us in a multi-year winter?
All are possible, all are catastrophic, and all are low risk enough that I'm not going around wasting time worrying about them.
(To be honest, of those three, the Carrington Event is probably the least unlikely, but I'm still not spending too much time worrying about it).
I am confident that an effective vaccine can, or more precisely could be, found. I think people are maybe unrealistic that this vaccine can achieve its aim of painless herd immunity within a matter of months. A vaccine typically takes a decade to research, trial, certify, manufacture and universally adopt. Covid-19 is being run on an accelerated timeframe, which will hopefully feed into other vaccine programmes later on. Even so, I suspect it will take a couple of years, rather than a few months, to achieve full effectiveness. During which time Covid-19 will be running its deadly course.
I think the survival of high living standards (this is what is frankly at stake now) will be something of an incentive to speed up the timeline.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the British public hadn't been vaccinated by the spring.
That would be nice, but it may just be wishful thinking. I suppose that the 'incentive' would be enough for governments to throw money at trying to develop a vaccine, but trials take time regardless of how much money you have and there is no guarrantee of success.
The phase 3 trials of the Oxford vaccine are already taking place and due to report well before the end of the year. Preliminary signs are very positive.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that we won't ever overcome this virus.
I know Stockholm and Goteborg (#1 & #3 Swedish cities well). Density is far lower than London
Stockholm - 4 638/km2 London - 5 327/km2
Not vastly lower at all.
That's pretty misleading. Stockholm doesn't have large parks, instead it has lots of water that's not included in the size figures. And London is also a bit of a donut, with some outer London boroughs having very low population density that drags the number down.
I doubt there is any part of Stockholm that is as crowded - on a day to day basis - as Camden, Brent, or any of the other inner London Boroughs.
It's your post that's misleading. Stockholm is 40% green space, while London is 33%, according to this site:
And Stockholm has lots of low-density outer areas too, in one of which I stayed the last time I was there.
The last paragraph is just an empty assertion and I think it's probably wrong because in my time in Stockholm I saw some dense inner city areas, but if you can provide any numbers to back it up I'll be happy to fact-check it.
People have a rather romantic idea of what Stockholm and other Scandinavian cities are like. I think the reality would shock most folk.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Mask wearing is more like not drinking and driving. It's the difference between those people who insist they are fine to drive after 2 or 3 pints and those who will get an Uber home.
I was never instinctively opposed to anything Corbyn ever proposed - nationalisation springs to mind - but the attempts to indirectly lionise him as ahead of the curve because, in an unprecedented emergency, some proposals look different in that different context, is utter shash.
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Masks don't make people feel safe.
The most vocal mandatory mask advocates I've spoken to in person still say they'll be worried and won't be shopping as much.
I hope I'm wrong, but my background in retail suggests to me that scaring the bejesus out of people and making shopping an uncomfortably experience will reduce in person shopping. Especially for non essentials.
It absolutely has and its a problem. People in shop are sticking to lists more than ever. Not wanting to browse. Not wanting to walk down any more aisles than they have to. And online shops are a pain in the bum for browsing, with supermarket systems set up to get people to reorder favourites.
We launched new products in April. They are really struggling because people aren't looking for new unless they have to. Whats more almost every new product launch this year is struggling for the same reasons. The grocery industry is scratching its head and wondering what the hell to do about it. I know of one major supermarket who is going to run its autumn range review event (fixed windows in the calendar where new products launch and the dross gets removed) and relaunch everything they launched in April...
Though there are some different things I'm now buying because I couldn't find my normal brands, bought something else and continued with the new brands.
Pasta and flour are two things where the choice seems to have increased.
Massively massively decreased. A multitude pack sizes, x,y or z brand alternatives have gone because (a) manufacturers can't make it (b) packaging manufacturers can't bag it (c) retailers needed to fewer SKUs in bulk to cope or combinations of all 3.
14,000 separate products have disappeared from shelves during the pandemic. Asda took 16% of products off sale. They aren't coming back either.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Of course he doesn't! Massive infringement of his liberties. Next you'll be expecting him to get an MoT for his car. The sheer gall of it - it's up to him to judge whether his car is safe or not.
Likewise with drinking and driving. How dare the State tell him how much he can drink before driving? Who's better placed to judge?
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Mr. Max, doom is always popular. See Ragnarok prophecies, the zombie apocalypse and so forth. Not to mention people love complaining about the government.
The very fact masks were worn during the Spanish flu is reassuring.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Mask wearing is more like not drinking and driving. It's the difference between those people who insist they are fine to drive after 2 or 3 pints and those who will get an Uber home.
Will you be wearing a mask the next time you go to a pub ?
I was never instinctively opposed to anything Corbyn ever proposed - nationalisation springs to mind - but the attempts to indirectly lionise him as ahead of the curve because, in an unprecedented emergency, some proposals look different in that different context, is utter shash.
Agreed - it’s an odd perspective. Maxing your credit card in an emergency is a different prospect to maxing it in normal times and then expecting to still have it ready to help out in emergencies.
Of course maxing your credit card with no intention to repay (which seems to be a rare point of cross-party unity) is a bad idea in most circumstances...
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
I've never understood why CGT is lower than income tax. Why should an unearned windfall gain be subject to less tax than income earned from setting the alarm clock, hauling yourself out of bed and slogging away at the coalface of work day in day out? I am fed up subsidising the lifestyle of people sleeping off a life on capital gain windfalls.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Mask wearing is more like not drinking and driving. It's the difference between those people who insist they are fine to drive after 2 or 3 pints and those who will get an Uber home.
Will you be wearing a mask the next time you go to a pub ?
Yes, I got the tube there the last few times, took the mask off once I got to my table. Going tomorrow evening and I will do the same, wear it until I get to the table.
Mr. Max, doom is always popular. See Ragnarok prophecies, the zombie apocalypse and so forth. Not to mention people love complaining about the government.
The very fact masks were worn during the Spanish flu is reassuring.
Also, doom fits in with the Swedish "stuff it, we might as well carry on pretty much as normal, we're all going to get it in the end anyway" narrative.
Imagine the UK has stuck to plan A. We'd look like proper chumps if the vaccine appeared shortly after a six figure death toll, wouldn't we?
Mr. Max, doom is always popular. See Ragnarok prophecies, the zombie apocalypse and so forth. Not to mention people love complaining about the government.
The very fact masks were worn during the Spanish flu is reassuring.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Because your home isn't an investment and CGT is a tax on investing.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Owner occupation is a core value for conservatives and it is where you live, and in most cases it is where you have bought it with your income after paying tax. You should not have to pay tax twice
I fail to understand why people will not do a simple thing like wear a mask in order to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus, do they want to go back into lockdown? What is the objection it’s not exactly the biggest infringement of human rights to get wound up about?
Desmond stated his personal perspective (it would reduce the amount he shops) and asked about enforcement. He didn’t say he wasn’t going to wear one, but pointed out some downsides
That’s just a different view not acting “like an over privileged man child” or a “fool”.
Four minutes for the Charles defence.
Your standards are slipping.
It must be a great comfort to fuckwitted old right wing turds everywhere to know that Charles is always ready to die on a cross for them.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Owner occupation is a core value for conservatives and it is where you live, and in most cases it is where you have bought it with your income after paying tax. You should not have to pay tax twice
You don't pay tax twice. You only pay tax on the gain so once.
Anyway the not paying tax twice thing is nonsense. You pay tax a second time everytime you buy something eg vat, duty, stamp duty, etc. or come to that by the logic of your argument CGT!!!!
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Because your home isn't an investment and CGT is a tax on investing.
A practical question. I bought a packet of 5 masks from the local pharmacy, labelled "medical disposable". What does disposable mean? Should I chuck it away after using it for 10 minutes, or when I see it's got dirty, or if I've had any symptoms, or what? Incidentally, they were £5, so if it really means "throw away after every use" then that's £365/year extra cost, which will be significant for many people.
I asked the same question yesterday and Foxy's response was some re-use pretty much inevitable, and suggested leaving them in an airing cupboard between use. Another poster, apologies I cant remember who, suggested cleaning between use with a UV wand (available from about £20 upwards). Perhaps do the combo?
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Mask wearing is more like not drinking and driving. It's the difference between those people who insist they are fine to drive after 2 or 3 pints and those who will get an Uber home.
Will you be wearing a mask the next time you go to a pub ?
Yes, I got the tube there the last few times, took the mask off once I got to my table. Going tomorrow evening and I will do the same, wear it until I get to the table.
Why not at the table - the time you spend drinking is likely less than 10% of the time you're there.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Owner occupation is a core value for conservatives and it is where you live, and in most cases it is where you have bought it with your income after paying tax. You should not have to pay tax twice
You don't pay tax twice. You only pay tax on the gain so once.
Anyway the not paying tax twice thing is nonsense. You pay tax a second time everytime you buy something eg vat, duty, stamp duty, etc. or come to that by the logic of your argument CGT!!!!
Most people buy their home over 25 year mortgage which they pay out of their income after tax. It is not an investment it is your home
However, it will never happen under any conservative administration and it would be very brave for Starmer to put it into labour's manifesto
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
I suspect it would make people less willing to sell - "I'm not paying this tax just to move house".
It would also be mostly paid by middle aged and older homeowners in southern England - a Conservative demographic.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Mask wearing is more like not drinking and driving. It's the difference between those people who insist they are fine to drive after 2 or 3 pints and those who will get an Uber home.
Will you be wearing a mask the next time you go to a pub ?
Yes, I got the tube there the last few times, took the mask off once I got to my table. Going tomorrow evening and I will do the same, wear it until I get to the table.
Why not at the table - the time you spend drinking is likely less than 10% of the time you're there.
Have you been to a pub yet? Once you get to the table you're there with your own group, and pretty far away from other groups and you also have to sit down, no standing allowed and they also have no shouting rules. There's table service and the waitress comes wearing a mask and sets the tray down, you get your own drinks off the tray, they don't hand them to you directly.
Your crusade against masks in shops is a very odd line in the sand.
On topic: this is exactly what I was afraid of, now that we've crossed the Rubicon with the shops. In a few weeks' time, the news will be that everyone will be breathing through rags, everywhere outside their own homes, for the rest of our lives. All bloody day, every day, forever.
I spend my day working in a well ventilated and really very large laboratory space with one other bloke. The way the work stations are arranged even keeps us two meters apart the entire time - and we'll still both end up with rags strapped to our faces all damned day. And make no mistake, this is it: it will NEVER end. Even in the unlikely event that a fully effective vaccine is ever developed, this misery will be enforced for all time *just in case* something like Covid ever happens again, or for some similar such spurious justification.
No shopping without rags, no travelling without rags, no sunbathing without rags, no walking alone through the middle of an empty field without rags. And when you finally kick the bucket they'll probably tell your family to bury your corpse wearing a fucking rag.
I hate this country.
No. It’s not. I get you’re down and lashing out rhetorically. This isn’t being done for a love of masks. No matter whether or not some people decide that “No, there’s no other logic, it’s the State deciding for some bizarre reason that they want everyone masked because they’re baddies, don’t you know.
Masks will be compulsory in a handful of enclosed spaces for as long as needed against covid. When a vaccine is here, they’ll be gone like last year’s snow.
What if we don’t get an effective vaccine and it turns out immune response from infection fades after months?
There’s still a lot of complacency that this is all a dream that will abruptly end. It might not. And once behavioural changes have been made, they’re very hard to undo.
Why would we not get an effective vaccine?
167 credible and potentially successful projects in operation. 29 of those already begun Phase 1 trials. 12 have begun Phase 2 already. 3 are already in large scale Phase 3 efficacy trials.
The virus is well and truly on the less-challenging end of the spectrum of vaccination difficulty - as shown by the rapidity at which the above has been happening (plus the unparallelled surge of activity to achieve it).
The chances of us getting an effective vaccine are overwhelming. I'm not, I believe, known around here for overoptimistic denialism of things being serious. If anything, I'm usually accused (if at all) of going the other way.
So, sure, what if we don't get a vaccine? Or what if there's a Carrington Event with the Sun in the next few months and most electronic systems are wiped out? Or what if one of the supervolcanoes around the world erupts and places us in a multi-year winter?
All are possible, all are catastrophic, and all are low risk enough that I'm not going around wasting time worrying about them.
(To be honest, of those three, the Carrington Event is probably the least unlikely, but I'm still not spending too much time worrying about it).
I am confident that an effective vaccine can, or more precisely could be, found. I think people are maybe unrealistic that this vaccine can achieve its aim of painless herd immunity within a matter of months. A vaccine typically takes a decade to research, trial, certify, manufacture and universally adopt. Covid-19 is being run on an accelerated timeframe, which will hopefully feed into other vaccine programmes later on. Even so, I suspect it will take a couple of years, rather than a few months, to achieve full effectiveness. During which time Covid-19 will be running its deadly course.
I think the survival of high living standards (this is what is frankly at stake now) will be something of an incentive to speed up the timeline.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the British public hadn't been vaccinated by the spring.
That would be nice, but it may just be wishful thinking. I suppose that the 'incentive' would be enough for governments to throw money at trying to develop a vaccine, but trials take time regardless of how much money you have and there is no guarrantee of success.
The phase 3 trials of the Oxford vaccine are already taking place and due to report well before the end of the year. Preliminary signs are very positive.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that we won't ever overcome this virus.
The narrative thing. As Pratchett said, we are the Storytelling Ape.
We have a deep-seated need for things to become a story And the better stories are the most dramatic ones.
"It's all a total disaster and nothing will ever be better again" is a dramatic story. Thus the "We'll never get a vaccine, everything will be horrible forever" adherence.
"Nothing's wrong, everyone's making a big fuss, we can just keep going as we were" is a gratifying story. Thus the denialist adherence.
"Things are complicated, there's a real issue, although your chances of dying are very tilted towards age and underlying health conditions, but being seriously ill and incapacitated for a significant period or hospitalised and/or suffering a lingering health condition aren't at all trivial and you can end up infecting others who may be even less lucky than you, we're learning more as we go along, some restrictions are necessary for a period but we can try to put up with these and work around them, and things will very likely be better again when we've got a vaccine but we're not sure when that will be other than sometime between later this year and some point next year, the economy is getting a brutal hit but there was no easy answer and we're going to have to take it for a while" is a complex and nuanced story.
An unattractive story. The other two are far better stories.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Where there is no alternative
My alternative to public transport is driving. So I do. Many people don’t so a mask policy makes them safer.
Masks in shops makes people think it is risky so they use Amazon. I think it’s the right policy but we should t ignore the economic cost
On topic: this is exactly what I was afraid of, now that we've crossed the Rubicon with the shops. In a few weeks' time, the news will be that everyone will be breathing through rags, everywhere outside their own homes, for the rest of our lives. All bloody day, every day, forever.
I spend my day working in a well ventilated and really very large laboratory space with one other bloke. The way the work stations are arranged even keeps us two meters apart the entire time - and we'll still both end up with rags strapped to our faces all damned day. And make no mistake, this is it: it will NEVER end. Even in the unlikely event that a fully effective vaccine is ever developed, this misery will be enforced for all time *just in case* something like Covid ever happens again, or for some similar such spurious justification.
No shopping without rags, no travelling without rags, no sunbathing without rags, no walking alone through the middle of an empty field without rags. And when you finally kick the bucket they'll probably tell your family to bury your corpse wearing a fucking rag.
I hate this country.
No. It’s not. I get you’re down and lashing out rhetorically. This isn’t being done for a love of masks. No matter whether or not some people decide that “No, there’s no other logic, it’s the State deciding for some bizarre reason that they want everyone masked because they’re baddies, don’t you know.
Masks will be compulsory in a handful of enclosed spaces for as long as needed against covid. When a vaccine is here, they’ll be gone like last year’s snow.
What if we don’t get an effective vaccine and it turns out immune response from infection fades after months?
There’s still a lot of complacency that this is all a dream that will abruptly end. It might not. And once behavioural changes have been made, they’re very hard to undo.
Why would we not get an effective vaccine?
167 credible and potentially successful projects in operation. 29 of those already begun Phase 1 trials. 12 have begun Phase 2 already. 3 are already in large scale Phase 3 efficacy trials.
The virus is well and truly on the less-challenging end of the spectrum of vaccination difficulty - as shown by the rapidity at which the above has been happening (plus the unparallelled surge of activity to achieve it).
The chances of us getting an effective vaccine are overwhelming. I'm not, I believe, known around here for overoptimistic denialism of things being serious. If anything, I'm usually accused (if at all) of going the other way.
So, sure, what if we don't get a vaccine? Or what if there's a Carrington Event with the Sun in the next few months and most electronic systems are wiped out? Or what if one of the supervolcanoes around the world erupts and places us in a multi-year winter?
All are possible, all are catastrophic, and all are low risk enough that I'm not going around wasting time worrying about them.
(To be honest, of those three, the Carrington Event is probably the least unlikely, but I'm still not spending too much time worrying about it).
I am confident that an effective vaccine can, or more precisely could be, found. I think people are maybe unrealistic that this vaccine can achieve its aim of painless herd immunity within a matter of months. A vaccine typically takes a decade to research, trial, certify, manufacture and universally adopt. Covid-19 is being run on an accelerated timeframe, which will hopefully feed into other vaccine programmes later on. Even so, I suspect it will take a couple of years, rather than a few months, to achieve full effectiveness. During which time Covid-19 will be running its deadly course.
I think the survival of high living standards (this is what is frankly at stake now) will be something of an incentive to speed up the timeline.
I'd be surprised if the majority of the British public hadn't been vaccinated by the spring.
That would be nice, but it may just be wishful thinking. I suppose that the 'incentive' would be enough for governments to throw money at trying to develop a vaccine, but trials take time regardless of how much money you have and there is no guarrantee of success.
The phase 3 trials of the Oxford vaccine are already taking place and due to report well before the end of the year. Preliminary signs are very positive.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that we won't ever overcome this virus.
The narrative thing. As Pratchett said, we are the Storytelling Ape.
We have a deep-seated need for things to become a story And the better stories are the most dramatic ones.
"It's all a total disaster and nothing will ever be better again" is a dramatic story. Thus the "We'll never get a vaccine, everything will be horrible forever" adherence.
"Nothing's wrong, everyone's making a big fuss, we can just keep going as we were" is a gratifying story. Thus the denialist adherence.
"Things are complicated, there's a real issue, although your chances of dying are very tilted towards age and underlying health conditions, but being seriously ill and incapacitated for a significant period or hospitalised and/or suffering a lingering health condition aren't at all trivial and you can end up infecting others who may be even less lucky than you, we're learning more as we go along, some restrictions are necessary for a period but we can try to put up with these and work around them, and things will very likely be better again when we've got a vaccine but we're not sure when that will be other than sometime between later this year and some point next year, the economy is getting a brutal hit but there was no easy answer and we're going to have to take it for a while" is a complex and nuanced story.
An unattractive story. The other two are far better stories.
And that's the trouble. Reality is often much more like the bad story than either of the good stories. Unfortunately, our Lord and Master likes the idea of telling stories. This is from that weirdos and misfits job advert that wasn't;
"We’re particularly interested in deep experts on TV and digital. We also are interested in people who have worked in movies or on advertising campaigns. There are some very interesting possibilities in the intersection of technology and story telling — if you’ve done something weird, this may be the place for you."
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
I suspect it would make people less willing to sell - "I'm not paying this tax just to move house".
It would also be mostly paid by middle aged and older homeowners in southern England - a Conservative demographic.
Agree with both of those points. Of course the eye watering stamp duty on buying should be another deterrent on moving. I'm not sure how much it is though.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Again, I'll go back to the same single line. CGT is a tax on investing and buying a home to live in isn't an investment, it's a necessity. It's the same reason we have VAT exemptions on food. Additionally, property is already taxed, there is stamp duty. It's only gone for a few months, it will be back next year.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Applying CGT to owner occupier homes is a complete taboo for any conservstive adminstration
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
Agree but why?
Owner occupation is a core value for conservatives and it is where you live, and in most cases it is where you have bought it with your income after paying tax. You should not have to pay tax twice
You don't pay tax twice. You only pay tax on the gain so once.
Anyway the not paying tax twice thing is nonsense. You pay tax a second time everytime you buy something eg vat, duty, stamp duty, etc. or come to that by the logic of your argument CGT!!!!
Most people buy their home over 25 year mortgage which they pay out of their income after tax. It is not an investment it is your home
However, it will never happen under any conservative administration and it would be very brave for Starmer to put it into labour's manifesto
BigG - Re your 2nd para; I agree.
You keep saying it is not an investment it is your home. So what. If you don't move you don't pay, but if you make a profit on selling it you should pay tax. You do on everything else. For goodness sake even if you die you pay tax on it (another example of paying tax a 2nd time).
So I am not asking you to pay tax on what you have paid for it (you seem to think I am). I am asking you to pay tax on the profit. Just like you do on everything else.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
I live here and Tower Bridge is busy with tourists most weekends from March thru December. It maybe depends exactly whats defined as City. The traditional City areas are much quieter but the immediate surrounding fringe areas such as Tower Bridge, St Katherines, Spitalfields, Brick Lane, Shoreditch, Hoxton are all busy 7 days a week.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Again, I'll go back to the same single line. CGT is a tax on investing and buying a home to live in isn't an investment, it's a necessity. It's the same reason we have VAT exemptions on food. Additionally, property is already taxed, there is stamp duty. It's only gone for a few months, it will be back next year.
Max we are going around in circles here and the question is the same - So what? You have made a profit so it should be taxed like all other profits. It is an anomaly and a whopping big one.
Re 2nd tax see discussion with BigG. Stamp duty is a purchase tax. We are always paying tax on the same funds twice. We do it everytime we buy stuff.
Eg Shares have both stamp duty and CGT applying to them.
I know Stockholm and Goteborg (#1 & #3 Swedish cities well). Density is far lower than London
Stockholm - 4 638/km2 London - 5 327/km2
Not vastly lower at all.
That's pretty misleading. Stockholm doesn't have large parks, instead it has lots of water that's not included in the size figures. And London is also a bit of a donut, with some outer London boroughs having very low population density that drags the number down.
I doubt there is any part of Stockholm that is as crowded - on a day to day basis - as Camden, Brent, or any of the other inner London Boroughs.
It's your post that's misleading. Stockholm is 40% green space, while London is 33%, according to this site:
And Stockholm has lots of low-density outer areas too, in one of which I stayed the last time I was there.
The last paragraph is just an empty assertion and I think it's probably wrong because in my time in Stockholm I saw some dense inner city areas, but if you can provide any numbers to back it up I'll be happy to fact-check it.
People have a rather romantic idea of what Stockholm and other Scandinavian cities are like. I think the reality would shock most folk.
Having spent spent a few week there, spread over about ten years, I would say central Stockholm has the feel of an English cathedral city, like Exeter. Oxford might be a better fit, with the large suburbs. Traffic levels in the centre at rush hour were similar to what I see on a Sunday in many British towns.
Having said that, the lake and the sea, particularly the archipelago, give it a unique quality, making any comparison unhelpful. I particularly enjoyed taking one of the ferries out into the archipelago and exploring the outer islands.
A practical question. I bought a packet of 5 masks from the local pharmacy, labelled "medical disposable". What does disposable mean? Should I chuck it away after using it for 10 minutes, or when I see it's got dirty, or if I've had any symptoms, or what? Incidentally, they were £5, so if it really means "throw away after every use" then that's £365/year extra cost, which will be significant for many people.
I think the cost of masks will come down as supplies improve, and washable cloth ones are an alternative*. Change the mask after 4 hours or so, when eating and drinking. I suspect they could be reused if kept in a warm place like an airing cupboard for 72 hours.
*I was skeptical on cloth masks but they seemed to work here, with an infectious carrier.
How about this for an off the wall prediction - any thoughts? In a few years time there are going to be major concerns starting to be raised about depopulation in developed countries. It is going to be traced back to Coronavirus and a major social changes as a result of lack of and/or restriction of social contact among younger generations. People will have stopped social contact outside of their existing social groups, many of which will also be single sex. Society will have become static and it will become noticeable that there are far fewer casual relationships, developing into longer partnerships. Sex drive will reduce and people will be spending more and more time on their computers. And suddenly researchers will start noticing the lack of babies...
I had a similar thought, as though it were the start of a path to a dystopic future society which outlawed human contact amid hyper intense fears of bugs and viruses. Hopefully human nature is stronger than that but people have gotten really scared of acting normally.
On an admittedly small sample of 1 I really haven't noticed the occasional use of a mask having a measurable effect on my sex life.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Do you put on your seatbelt when you get in the car?
Of course he doesn't! Massive infringement of his liberties. Next you'll be expecting him to get an MoT for his car. The sheer gall of it - it's up to him to judge whether his car is safe or not.
Likewise with drinking and driving. How dare the State tell him how much he can drink before driving? Who's better placed to judge?
He probably doesn't put his seatbelt on when the car is parked and the engine turned off.
I was told just yesterday by people on here that face masks in shops was nothing to worry about,.
just a minor inconvenience,
a tiny sacrifice,
honestly what is your problem,
by people who think they are intelligent.
But the thing is that once you give authoritarians an inch, they will take a mile. Once you roll over on one freedom, they will take them all, step by step.
And we read today that after our freedoms, the next thing they are coming for is our money, via enormous increases in CGT.
And that's just the start.
New normal? there's nothing normal about it.
Last week stamp duty was cut and a VAT holiday given ie both tax cuts, CGT is imply being reviewed that is all
Got me worried though
I would like to see CGT on residential properties, although to make it fair it would have to be based upon current valuation (which could be tricky to establish) and not be retrospective for existing homes.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
Because CGT is a tax on investing. Buying and living in a home isn't an investment, it's living. More than happy for them to put CGT up to income tax rates for non-primary residences, however.
Why? There is no tax when you are living in it. You pay the tax on your gains. Why is it any different to any other investment? You don't pay the tax until to make the gain.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Again, because it's not an investment, it's a home. As I said, more than happy for CGT to be raised to income tax levels for non-primary residences. I think any party which introduces this will be out of power for a very, very long time. It's probably the single most unpopular policy I can think of.
Max I don't disagree with you that it might be unpopular, but only because people will think that it is a tax hike and tax hikes are unpopular.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
Again, I'll go back to the same single line. CGT is a tax on investing and buying a home to live in isn't an investment, it's a necessity. It's the same reason we have VAT exemptions on food. Additionally, property is already taxed, there is stamp duty. It's only gone for a few months, it will be back next year.
Its an unwinnable argument for advocates of CGT on main residence for political reasons (and not sure Id support it even if it were winnable) but I think logically kjh has a point.
As a renter I pay for my home out of a mix of earned income and my investments. I have to pay CGT on my investments and get no corresponding benefit to the CGT exemption enjoyed by home owners. Homes are still a necessity for renters, and we manage to pay our CGT.
Some right wingers have really lost the plot over masks. Says much about them.
The anti-maskers sound just like toddlers having a tantrum. Bl`ck Rock and others are just embarrassing themselves.
FFS you are being asked to wear a mask when you go in a shop in order to try to protect others and prevent another ruinous lockdown. What possible downside is there even if it doesn't work?
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
Why the hell shouldn’t theatres put on productions in provincial towns? There are plenty of such companies around and the one thing stopping them has been the lack of support (until recently) and people not going out. But once they do there is absolutely no reason why smaller theatres (and other performing arts) shouldn’t develop and prosper and develop imaginative ways of bringing theatre to where people are.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
An argument or two for not charging CGT on primary residences: If we start doing this then we massively reduce incentives to downsize by older people in homes which are now too big for their needs. This makes the current housing problem even worse. It will also make it much less likely that someone will be prepared to move house to get a better job if the process will cost them a couple of year's pay in taxes.
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
All good points. Calling them masks doesn’t help. It sounds a little frightening. I think of mine as a snood which happens to cover my nose and mouth and keeps me warm(as well as, I hope, safe-ish). Given the variable weather in the Lakes, this is a bit of a bonus as far as I’m concerned.
It may not be a help to the men on here but they do provide a great opportunity for beautiful eye-make up. Lipstick manufacturers, OTOH, must be furious.
Some right wingers have really lost the plot over masks. Says much about them.
The anti-maskers sound just like toddlers having a tantrum. Bl`ck Rock and others are just embarrassing themselves.
FFS you are being asked to wear a mask when you go in a shop in order to try to protect others and prevent another ruinous lockdown. What possible downside is there even if it doesn't work?
Some of the stuff on TV/the press has been so unhinged evern from supposedly rational people such as MPs that I am increasingly wondering if the right-wing anti-maskers think
- 1. It is infra dig to wear a mask - it's the sort of thing plebs and scientists and so on do. - 2. Ditto, but furriners this time. Especially in the rEU. - 3. It's a visible admission that their Brexiter government has made a massive clusterbourach of the whole matter. The mark of shame of the right-winger.
(Not sure about the leftie ones, though I get the anarchist/libertiarian ones, even if they are wrong - masks are as much part of the communal, mutual benefit system as protection for oneself).
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
All good points. Calling them masks doesn’t help. It sounds a little frightening. I think of mine as a snood which happens to cover my nose and mouth and keeps me warm(as well as, I hope, safe-ish). Given the variable weather in the Lakes, this is a bit of a bonus as far as I’m concerned.
It may not be a help to the men on here but they do provide a great opportunity for beautiful eye-make up. Lipstick manufacturers, OTOH, must be furious.
Worth remembering - for all those thinking that a virus means the end of sex and all civilised life - that our parents and grand-parents and,indeed, most of recorded humanity, lived and managed to create wonderful civilisations with all sorts of ghastly diseases and without vaccines.
Just catching up on the apocalyptic debate over the death of central London. Isn't it just simply that central London will remain quiet as long as people are reluctant to use public transport? To socialise in the West End, most folk use the tube, some the bus. They don't want to risk it for non-essential journeys. So they're staying local and going out in Hackney, Islington, Brixton or wherever they live - such areas are quite busy. The West End will revive once public transport is seen as safe.
But masks are mandatory on public transport.
And we've been assured that masks make people feel safer and encourage people to go to where they are mandatory.
Masks don't make people feel safe.
The most vocal mandatory mask advocates I've spoken to in person still say they'll be worried and won't be shopping as much.
I hope I'm wrong, but my background in retail suggests to me that scaring the bejesus out of people and making shopping an uncomfortably experience will reduce in person shopping. Especially for non essentials.
That sounds likely to me.
I wonder how many of the mask obsessives are cowering in their homes or working from home / shopping online with no intention of going out in any case.
Depends on your personal psychology, doesn't it? If you're risk-averse, you'll probably not be keen on going out in general and you'll be in favour of public mask-wearing. The reverse being true for those more accepting of risk.
It may seem unfair, but by definition a second wave isn't going to be caused by the first category in any event; instead, it's most important to cut down transmission within the latter group who are likely to be out and about and less concerned about safety measures. It sucks, but there we are.
That's not true, I'm anti face nappy and I'm not risk averse.
Quite the opposite. I'm more than happy for the old normal to re-start tomorrow, because I'm satisfied the risks are extremely low, and the NHS should be able to cope.
The place is empty and all the extra capacity has been mothballed.
Do people call them face nappies because they talk shit?
If we get a vaccine it will be fascinating to see how many of those having a tantrum about wearing a mask for a few minutes in a shop turn out to be anti-vaccers. God help us when they get started on that issue!
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
All good points. Calling them masks doesn’t help. It sounds a little frightening. I think of mine as a snood which happens to cover my nose and mouth and keeps me warm(as well as, I hope, safe-ish). Given the variable weather in the Lakes, this is a bit of a bonus as far as I’m concerned.
It may not be a help to the men on here but they do provide a great opportunity for beautiful eye-make up. Lipstick manufacturers, OTOH, must be furious.
You're saying I can't wear eye makeup??
Be my guest.
I rather had you down as a sober Dundee lawyer who did not bother with such fripperies.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
Why the hell shouldn’t theatres put on productions in provincial towns? There are plenty of such companies around and the one thing stopping them has been the lack of support (until recently) and people not going out. But once they do there is absolutely no reason why smaller theatres (and other performing arts) shouldn’t develop and prosper and develop imaginative ways of bringing theatre to where people are.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
Yes, sure.
But London - because of the size and diversity of its population - supported an eco-system of culture which cannot simply migrate to smaller commuter towns.
As for living above shops, people do, and planning laws will make that even easier.
But that’s not going to help the West End cafe owners.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
Because an Englishman's Home is his Castle. Home. Not an apartment where you spend £750k to purchase a key for a Yale Lock. If we still had a rental culture it might be different. Have a long term cheap(er than now) rent on a nice apartment. You don't "own" it but why would you want to when someone else owns the building including your flat and you have to pay them a service charge.
You have a balcony that you can swing a cat on. And shop and socialise and work within walking or cycling distance. Sound good? NO! Thats BAD. If we do that how can the Property investors put up rabbit hutch flats and charge stupid money for them? Property investors who pay £lots for tables at fund raising dinners to definitely not influence ministers.
Worth remembering - for all those thinking that a virus means the end of sex and all civilised life - that our parents and grand-parents and,indeed, most of recorded humanity, lived and managed to create wonderful civilisations with all sorts of ghastly diseases and without vaccines.
And there were many tearful but enthusiastic reunions when couples got back together after the end of WWII. Hence the baby boom.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
Because an Englishman's Home is his Castle. Home. Not an apartment where you spend £750k to purchase a key for a Yale Lock. If we still had a rental culture it might be different. Have a long term cheap(er than now) rent on a nice apartment. You don't "own" it but why would you want to when someone else owns the building including your flat and you have to pay them a service charge.
You have a balcony that you can swing a cat on. And shop and socialise and work within walking or cycling distance. Sound good? NO! Thats BAD. If we do that how can the Property investors put up rabbit hutch flats and charge stupid money for them? Property investors who pay £lots for tables at fund raising dinners to definitely not influence ministers.
For what it's worth the positive version of this is how I grew up - top floor of this
split-level rented 4-room flat, 2 balconies (one on each side), playground below the building, 5 minutes to main station and shops, village on the other side. It was lovely - I've never lived in a better place and wouldn't mind retiring there one day. As RP suggests, that's not the same as a rabbit hutch.
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time. 2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again. 3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't. 4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero. 5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do. 6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
All good points. Calling them masks doesn’t help. It sounds a little frightening. I think of mine as a snood which happens to cover my nose and mouth and keeps me warm(as well as, I hope, safe-ish). Given the variable weather in the Lakes, this is a bit of a bonus as far as I’m concerned.
It may not be a help to the men on here but they do provide a great opportunity for beautiful eye-make up. Lipstick manufacturers, OTOH, must be furious.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
Because an Englishman's Home is his Castle. Home. Not an apartment where you spend £750k to purchase a key for a Yale Lock. If we still had a rental culture it might be different. Have a long term cheap(er than now) rent on a nice apartment. You don't "own" it but why would you want to when someone else owns the building including your flat and you have to pay them a service charge.
You have a balcony that you can swing a cat on. And shop and socialise and work within walking or cycling distance. Sound good? NO! Thats BAD. If we do that how can the Property investors put up rabbit hutch flats and charge stupid money for them? Property investors who pay £lots for tables at fund raising dinners to definitely not influence ministers.
For what it's worth the positive version of this is how I grew up - top floor of this
split-level rented 4-room flat, 2 balconies (one on each side), playground below the building, 5 minutes to main station and shops, village on the other side. It was lovely - I've never lived in a better place and wouldn't mind retiring there one day. As RP suggests, that's not the same as a rabbit hutch.
In most of the country we do have a rental culture. Still rebuilding to do after the rundown to 1988, but it exists.
If you think about it, leasehold is a rental culture of a different kind.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
Why the hell shouldn’t theatres put on productions in provincial towns? There are plenty of such companies around and the one thing stopping them has been the lack of support (until recently) and people not going out. But once they do there is absolutely no reason why smaller theatres (and other performing arts) shouldn’t develop and prosper and develop imaginative ways of bringing theatre to where people are.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
Yes, sure.
But London - because of the size and diversity of its population - supported an eco-system of culture which cannot simply migrate to smaller commuter towns.
As for living above shops, people do, and planning laws will make that even easier.
But that’s not going to help the West End cafe owners.
The single biggest issue above shops is no or few mortgages on mixed tenure properties, which keeps most people out.
The London comments are interesting. I spent 3 years working in Kings Cross from mid-1999 onwards. First 6 months I lived in a hovel in Kings Cross itself. Could walk to a supermarket (Safeway!) and big department stores, but when your "local" shops are on Oxford Street and you need to navigate the tourists you do it as little as possible.
For the rest of the time I lived on the Edmonton / Enfield border. Edmonton was just a place I caught public transport (hated it otherwise). Enfield a nice enough little town. When I was in the office I might go out in London - I wouldn't haul myself in from Zone 4 otherwise. There must be a LOT of people in outer zones who work in Zone 1 who like me don't normally head into town for the hell of it. I assume that is why its is so dead - no tourists, no workers. Haven't been into the centre of ANY big city since this started so no idea if that is just a London problem or not, but I can understand why people don't want to go there. I didn't.
I used to go to the City quite frequently at weekends. It’s always been a ghost town.
Not any more, well at least pre-lockdown. It's a thriving market space now at weekends. The most striking thing to go to the City at weekends is the colour. Weekdays everyone is in blue, black, grey. At the weekends it is like carnival in comparison.
End of last year I was driving through the City to visit the Tower most weekends. Definitely not much going on there...
The Central London economy (Zone 1) is entirely reliant on office workers and tourists.
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
I think this is too pessimistic. London is not a pure tourist / office economy though agree much of the fluffier stuff is - approximately 3.5 million people live in Inner London. That is approx the population of Berlin. House prices and rentals may shift, but they won't be vanishing in the couple of years it may take to get a vaccine.
Public transport services could correctly be scaled to meet demand; personally I think TFL is still so bloated that it could be slimmed considerably with little loss of service. If there is going to be a significant shift to active travel - cycling has doubled in London but another six-fold increase would still be to well under 20% - then public transport will have a crisis anyway.
Presumably the two theatres that already exist in Luton (capacity approx 1000 and approx 500 aiui) will continue to put on performances.
Theatreland is interesting. If I remember my youth, much of it has been dark for long periods and come back, or run as private clubs when we had censorship last time around.
Comments
As I've said many times, if there's one thing the government has done well, it's vaccines and securing priority access to a pretty wide range, even if it means spending money today in something that might not work.
Quite the opposite. I'm more than happy for the old normal to re-start tomorrow, because I'm satisfied the risks are extremely low, and the NHS should be able to cope.
The place is empty and all the extra capacity has been mothballed.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jul/14/rishi-sunaks-capital-gains-tax-review-may-usher-in-higher-taxes-on-wealthy
Quite right too.
One example of online from a long-established player. Sainsburys decided to beat Tesco.com's market share with online. So they invested heavily. Hollowed out part of their Holborn HQ to install groovy IT developers zone complete with rad colours, creativity spaces with table football, a kind of stepped bowl where developers could sit and be presented to on a screen. Having done all that and hired the programmers did they offer an Amazon approach of recommending similar things? Yes! Does it work in practice? No! Because they pick orders from stores that don't have to stock the products you want never mind the "try this one" recommendation.
From a personal point of view it would not do me any favours as I basically have much of my pension in my house (like many) which I will downsize from in time, but I don't see why I shouldn't pay tax on that gain.
I don't understand why some people seem to think that we won't ever overcome this virus.
I was never instinctively opposed to anything Corbyn ever proposed - nationalisation springs to mind - but the attempts to indirectly lionise him as ahead of the curve because, in an unprecedented emergency, some proposals look different in that different context, is utter shash.
After he has finished with Middle England, he will be lucky to keep his seat.
14,000 separate products have disappeared from shelves during the pandemic. Asda took 16% of products off sale. They aren't coming back either.
Massive infringement of his liberties. Next you'll be expecting him to get an MoT for his car. The sheer gall of it - it's up to him to judge whether his car is safe or not.
Likewise with drinking and driving. How dare the State tell him how much he can drink before driving? Who's better placed to judge?
CGT applied to second homes and holiday homes is another matter
The very fact masks were worn during the Spanish flu is reassuring.
Of course maxing your credit card with no intention to repay (which seems to be a rare point of cross-party unity) is a bad idea in most circumstances...
Imagine the UK has stuck to plan A. We'd look like proper chumps if the vaccine appeared shortly after a six figure death toll, wouldn't we?
https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/why-life-went-on-as-normal-during-the-killer-pandemic-of-1969/
I don't remember a single mask in the UK.
It would also put downward pressure on house prices so shouldn't impact moving on, but will benefit 1st time buyers. The effective payers will be those selling not to rebuy or downsizing i.e. those that have made an untaxed profit.
Possible line for Biden for debates.
'You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me it's a full time job. Now behave yourself.'
Anyway the not paying tax twice thing is nonsense. You pay tax a second time everytime you buy something eg vat, duty, stamp duty, etc. or come to that by the logic of your argument CGT!!!!
However, it will never happen under any conservative administration and it would be very brave for Starmer to put it into labour's manifesto
It would also be mostly paid by middle aged and older homeowners in southern England - a Conservative demographic.
Your crusade against masks in shops is a very odd line in the sand.
As Pratchett said, we are the Storytelling Ape.
We have a deep-seated need for things to become a story And the better stories are the most dramatic ones.
"It's all a total disaster and nothing will ever be better again" is a dramatic story. Thus the "We'll never get a vaccine, everything will be horrible forever" adherence.
"Nothing's wrong, everyone's making a big fuss, we can just keep going as we were" is a gratifying story. Thus the denialist adherence.
"Things are complicated, there's a real issue, although your chances of dying are very tilted towards age and underlying health conditions, but being seriously ill and incapacitated for a significant period or hospitalised and/or suffering a lingering health condition aren't at all trivial and you can end up infecting others who may be even less lucky than you, we're learning more as we go along, some restrictions are necessary for a period but we can try to put up with these and work around them, and things will very likely be better again when we've got a vaccine but we're not sure when that will be other than sometime between later this year and some point next year, the economy is getting a brutal hit but there was no easy answer and we're going to have to take it for a while" is a complex and nuanced story.
An unattractive story. The other two are far better stories.
But what in principle is your objection? You keep saying it is a home but not an investment. So what. If you make a large untaxed profit on it it should be taxed like everything else.
I know people who have profited to such an extent in London that it dwarf there entire lifetime income. They then downsize outside of London and take the profit entirely untaxed.
As I said because of the impact on house prices the only people effectively paying the tax will be the downsizers and those not rebuying so those who are realising a profit.
It also will help first time buyers.
My alternative to public transport is driving. So I do. Many people don’t so a mask policy makes them safer.
Masks in shops makes people think it is risky so they use Amazon. I think it’s the right policy but we should t ignore the economic cost
"We’re particularly interested in deep experts on TV and digital. We also are interested in people who have worked in movies or on advertising campaigns. There are some very interesting possibilities in the intersection of technology and story telling — if you’ve done something weird, this may be the place for you."
This is not necessarily a good thing.
You keep saying it is not an investment it is your home. So what. If you don't move you don't pay, but if you make a profit on selling it you should pay tax. You do on everything else. For goodness sake even if you die you pay tax on it (another example of paying tax a 2nd time).
So I am not asking you to pay tax on what you have paid for it (you seem to think I am). I am asking you to pay tax on the profit. Just like you do on everything else.
Re 2nd tax see discussion with BigG. Stamp duty is a purchase tax. We are always paying tax on the same funds twice. We do it everytime we buy stuff.
Eg Shares have both stamp duty and CGT applying to them.
Having said that, the lake and the sea, particularly the archipelago, give it a unique quality, making any comparison unhelpful.
I particularly enjoyed taking one of the ferries out into the archipelago and exploring the outer islands.
*I was skeptical on cloth masks but they seemed to work here, with an infectious carrier.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1283260070126592003?s=09
Tourism is unlikely to recover in full for some years. Office working will recover, but to a new “norm” - 2 days in / 3 days out seems likely.
We can fully expect and are already witnessing the collapse of the central London service economy - restaurants, cafes, theatres, galleries and indeed retail - and a savage scale back in public transport services, necessitated by inevitable budget crises.
*Some* economic activity will be displaced back to St Albans, Guildford etc, but most of it will migrate online in the form of Amazon and Ocado delivery. Theatres will not start putting productions on in Luton...the “creative pound” will move to Netflix.
The lamps are going out along Oxford Street, we shall not see them lit....for a long time.
Neither do I.
As a renter I pay for my home out of a mix of earned income and my investments. I have to pay CGT on my investments and get no corresponding benefit to the CGT exemption enjoyed by home owners. Homes are still a necessity for renters, and we manage to pay our CGT.
FFS you are being asked to wear a mask when you go in a shop in order to try to protect others and prevent another ruinous lockdown. What possible downside is there even if it doesn't work?
1. They really should have been introduced with the lockdown. Presumably the government was concerned about the lack of PPE for the NHS and care workers (assuming they really thought about the latter at all) at the time.
2. If they had been we would accept that this was a sensible part of infection control and it would have seemed normal to use them as the range of shops and services expanded again.
3. Because they weren't, and because the connection between shops opening and masks having to be worn wasn't made, the utility of masks has become an issue in a way that it otherwise wouldn't.
4. That utility is a genuine issue. Almost none of us are trained to use masks properly, we touch them all the time, we fiddle about with them, we constantly steam up our glasses (more touching) and it is very questionable how much such badly used masks prevent infection spreading. I think it is evident that the protection given to the user him or her self is approaching zero.
5. I think those asking what the fuss is about are underestimating the psychological effects as well. We are trying to get our badly damaged economy back to something like normal in a time of relatively low infection in the community. Masks don't add normality, they make people very conscious that being out is not an entertainment but a risk. People will still go shopping when they need to. They may not go because they want something to do.
6. At a time when we are deeply concerned about our bounce back ability this is a significant problem. If we can't go to the shops without a mask should our kids really be going to school, should we go out for a meal, a pint, a coffee, back to the office?
If we had followed steps 1 and 2 then the impact would have been less and we might have accepted a trade off between 2m and masks. Now, I am not sure. I think we have made things more difficult for ourselves.
Also why shouldn’t people live in the middle of a city above shops etc like they do in many European cities?
If we start doing this then we massively reduce incentives to downsize by older people in homes which are now too big for their needs. This makes the current housing problem even worse. It will also make it much less likely that someone will be prepared to move house to get a better job if the process will cost them a couple of year's pay in taxes.
It may not be a help to the men on here but they do provide a great opportunity for beautiful eye-make up. Lipstick manufacturers, OTOH, must be furious.
- 1. It is infra dig to wear a mask - it's the sort of thing plebs and scientists and so on do.
- 2. Ditto, but furriners this time. Especially in the rEU.
- 3. It's a visible admission that their Brexiter government has made a massive clusterbourach of the whole matter. The mark of shame of the right-winger.
(Not sure about the leftie ones, though I get the anarchist/libertiarian ones, even if they are wrong - masks are as much part of the communal, mutual benefit system as protection for oneself).
I rather had you down as a sober Dundee lawyer who did not bother with such fripperies.
Djokovic, for example, has revealed himself to be an utter plank.
But London - because of the size and diversity of its population - supported an eco-system of culture which cannot simply migrate to smaller commuter towns.
As for living above shops, people do, and planning laws will make that even easier.
But that’s not going to help the West End cafe owners.
You have a balcony that you can swing a cat on. And shop and socialise and work within walking or cycling distance. Sound good? NO! Thats BAD. If we do that how can the Property investors put up rabbit hutch flats and charge stupid money for them? Property investors who pay £lots for tables at fund raising dinners to definitely not influence ministers.
Saddling business with 7 billion annual costs and restricting the freedoms of its citizens is being sold as some wonderful opportunity !
Hence the baby boom.
https://bdtu.dk/housing-search/property-overview?key=20_2
split-level rented 4-room flat, 2 balconies (one on each side), playground below the building, 5 minutes to main station and shops, village on the other side. It was lovely - I've never lived in a better place and wouldn't mind retiring there one day. As RP suggests, that's not the same as a rabbit hutch.
If you think about it, leasehold is a rental culture of a different kind.
Public transport services could correctly be scaled to meet demand; personally I think TFL is still so bloated that it could be slimmed considerably with little loss of service. If there is going to be a significant shift to active travel - cycling has doubled in London but another six-fold increase would still be to well under 20% - then public transport will have a crisis anyway.
Presumably the two theatres that already exist in Luton (capacity approx 1000 and approx 500 aiui) will continue to put on performances.
Theatreland is interesting. If I remember my youth, much of it has been dark for long periods and come back, or run as private clubs when we had censorship last time around.