Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
The intention is to enable a planning free for all outside those limited areas designated as “protected”.
This despite the huge number of unimplemented permissions and clear evidence that developers sit on both permissions and land to ensure that prices remain high.
The Tory party will surely fold on the reforms, faced with backbench MPs up in arms and myriad Tory councillors looking at losing their seats.
Yes, I don't pretend to understand it but that doesn't smell right.
We'll get some real low-quality uncoordinated crap popping up all over the place with that.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Arguably a vast improvement on the present situation, where almost 100% of the country is "protected" - by Nimbies.
Yeah, it isn't though, is it?
Of course, nearby residents will *always* object to new development but I think the coalition reforms toward planning during the 2010 parliament (giving areas a broad quota and requiring local neighborhood plans with local buy-in) were a good way to do this.
It just feels too broad brush and simplistic to me, which is usually a sign of someone not having done enough hard thinking and some massive cock ups to come.
Noting the lack of females in these best never to make PM lists since 1970 what happened to Shirley Williams in all the lists? Why is the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace being left out of all these best Tory to replace Boris conversations?.Unlike most of his cabinet teammates he has hardly put a foot as a minister and he has CV prior to politics of serving in Ulster for the Army and then having a go at setting up a business
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
And once you introduce rollover relief (as you need to) the amount of money raised would make it pointless.
If you need to tax housing you really do need a land tax (and yes I know that has problems) but it's just about the sanest approach you there is to tax wealth in a collectable way.
Nah just charge 1% pa on the value of the house today. Phase in to today’s value over 15 years for people who bought a long time ago. Stamp duty paid in the last 10 years can be offset against this liability. Increases annually at the RPI rate; can be temporarily discounted if there is a substantial decrease in house prices.
The trouble is that a stable lead nationally could disguise a small decline in the swing States which could be fatal to Biden's chances. We need to see more polls from Wisconsin, Michigan, PA etc before we can tell whether the betting movement towards Trump is misguided.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
People will bid up house prices as high as they can afford. Fox Jr is buying a house near identical to the one I bought 28 years ago. Four times the price, but at current interest rates more affordable than my house with 12% mortgage rates.
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Arguably a vast improvement on the present situation, where almost 100% of the country is "protected" - by Nimbies.
Yeah, it isn't though, is it?
Of course, nearby residents will *always* object to new development but I think the coalition reforms toward planning during the 2010 parliament (giving areas a broad quota and requiring local neighborhood plans with local buy-in) were a good way to do this.
It just feels too broad brush and simplistic to me, which is usually a sign of someone not having done enough hard thinking and some massive cock ups to come.
Taking the broader sweep of history, it is remarkable that the radical planning reforms enacted by the Attlee government in 1948 were seen as a nod to the supposed efficacy of central planning and the public sector’s ability to ‘direct’ development (reflecting the supposed achievements of soviet Russia at the time) - and were opposed by Tories as the first time that landowners faced restrictions on doing whatever they liked with their land.
Roll forward and many of a conservative persuasion are defending the same reforms on the basis of the rights they give neighbours to object to stuff being done on adjacent land!
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
People will bid up house prices as high as they can afford. Fox Jr is buying a house near identical to the one I bought 28 years ago. Four times the price, but at current interest rates more affordable than my house with 12% mortgage rates.
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Better than sticking up interest rates would be tighter regulation of mortgage lending so that Fox Jr can't be so easily outbid by someone who is willing to overstretch.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
Shirley Williams and Barbara Castle could be on such a list of PMs.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
People will bid up house prices as high as they can afford. Fox Jr is buying a house near identical to the one I bought 28 years ago. Four times the price, but at current interest rates more affordable than my house with 12% mortgage rates.
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Simply defeatist.
It’s going to be a long time before interest rates return to what most of a sane persuasion would in times gone by have regarded as ‘normal’.
Meanwhile there is plenty that government could do (but won’t) to address the extreme imbalances of the UK housing market.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
People will bid up house prices as high as they can afford. Fox Jr is buying a house near identical to the one I bought 28 years ago. Four times the price, but at current interest rates more affordable than my house with 12% mortgage rates.
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Simply defeatist.
It’s going to be a long time before interest rates return to what most of a sane persuasion would in times gone by have regarded as ‘normal’.
Meanwhile there is plenty that government could do (but won’t) to address the extreme imbalances of the UK housing market.
Interest rates have been almost non-existent my entire adult life. This is now the "normal". Anyone below the age of 30 has never experienced what you would consider "sane" and "normal" interest rates.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
Shirley Williams and Barbara Castle could be on such a list of PMs.
I'd not argue against either of them.
I think Maggie was required reading for us all though, so just Williams in the frame.
Lots of big problems get much better if you build more homes.
The planning reform really does need to be top of the pile when MPs return next week.
It'll almost certainly get swept away on a tide of Nimbyism. The Government benches are full of shire counties MPs armed with excuses as to why nasty houses should not be built in their patch, led by a Prime Minister whose entire skeleton appears to be made of jelly.
I must say I don't really understand the reforms.
Everywhere is going to be categorised into Growth, Renewal and Protected.
The former is for big development, the middle one has permission in principle for development and the latter is protected.
There will be huge fights over what is "Protected". Outside of national parks, green belts and sites of special scientific interest or outstanding natural beauty the first two categories could cover almost the whole of England.
Arguably a vast improvement on the present situation, where almost 100% of the country is "protected" - by Nimbies.
Yeah, it isn't though, is it?
Of course, nearby residents will *always* object to new development but I think the coalition reforms toward planning during the 2010 parliament (giving areas a broad quota and requiring local neighborhood plans with local buy-in) were a good way to do this.
It just feels too broad brush and simplistic to me, which is usually a sign of someone not having done enough hard thinking and some massive cock ups to come.
Taking the broader sweep of history, it is remarkable that the radical planning reforms enacted by the Attlee government in 1948 were seen as a nod to the supposed efficacy of central planning and the public sector’s ability to ‘direct’ development (reflecting the supposed achievements of soviet Russia at the time) - and were opposed by Tories as the first time that landowners faced restrictions on doing whatever they liked with their land.
Roll forward and many of a conservative persuasion are defending the same reforms on the basis of the rights they give neighbours to object to stuff being done on adjacent land!
Yes, at the time they were seen as the next best thing to the nationalisation of land.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
Regarding the end of summer and the end of financial support. Unfortunately the pox hasn't gone away, is already surging back and that's before we send the school super spreaders to work. The government needs to try and at least throttle the vast sums being spent supporting the economy, but its seems clear enough that the result in doing so will be a surge in unemployment.
For a right wing free marketeer that shouldn't provide a concern and didn't in the 80s when economic reform and modernisation required the mass unemployment of working people across the midlands and north. These people didn't vote Tory and didn't matter. But now? One of the successes of the Tories has been the demonisation of state aid. If you are taking support from the government you must be some kind of scrounger, shirker, failure. Universal Credit, Food Banks, Bedroom Taxes - these are all things that happen to other people and besides its exaggerated.
Until now. The people being dumped onto UC are increasingly the people told UC was for dossers who live it large on your tax dollars. They are finding the opposite is true, and the "is that all I can get" conversations with the likes of Citizens Advice I am assured are eye-opening. As the middle class increasingly find themselves dumped onto a system that treats them like dirt and provides farthings, whilst at the same time the government issues increasingly patronising messages featuring someone like Ester McVeigh pretenting to drive off to her "staycation" I cannot see how the Tories avoid the political calamity this will bring.
And just as the pain from their people gets the most acute, we exit from transition with no deal. The borders gum shut, we get mass shortages and what there is costs money that their people don't have. Whilst IDS pops up cheering the glorious future we have now started. No wonder Shagger is looking to step off the stage.
In 2018 to 2019 the government is forecast to spend £222 billion on the social security system in the UK, £2 billion lower in real terms than in 2017 to 2018.
£119 billion is forecast to be within the welfare cap, and £103 billion outside the welfare cap. In 2017 to 2018 £122 billion of expenditure was within the welfare cap, and £102 billion was outside.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how much more the government should be spending on social security payments.
And where the extra money should come from.
A lot of that none welfare cap money is housing benefit paid to private landlords.
If HMRC and the government wish to really cut costs I can save them billions there and yes some people landlords would scream but investment conditions and change and investments will go up and down.
HB for Private Rentals is not normally outside the benefit cap, according to the CAB:
The Benefit Cap is a limit to the total amount of money you can get from benefits. The Benefit Cap will only apply if you get Housing Benefit or Universal Credit.
That is not a "Lot" out of £102bn, or £600 billion for that matter.
Isn't it time we move on from these silly (and sometimes fake) kneejerk arguments targeted on the Private Rental Sector?
It says we spend £5000 on average to 4.6m people. If we halved that, to £2500 average, what would happen to the houses and flats the landlords own? Surely they would just rent them out for approx £2500 less to broadly the same people, or sell them to other landlords (who again have to accept the lower rent) or to the people renting.
What else can they do with the properties that would make them more money?
Indirectly it would also bring down other private rents for those not on housing benefit, who in turn would spend more into the wider economy more efficiently than they do through rent.
Several problems with that.
You are assuming that there is no other demand for new rentals. There is. They would rent the flat to anyone who would pay more than £2500 below market rent, and perhaps get the benefit of not having to deal with Councils. Rents are currently not going down; check any industry reports.
Currently demand is at near record highs.
If you try to cut £2500 you would also make many properties lossmaking. If the LLs bale out, then they go for sale to other LLs or people who are *not* HB renters - who are required by the regulations to have little or know capital, and therefore cannot buy houses but will continue to look for rentals. Either way, it is inimical to the interest of HB renters.
There is also the need to justify that just for tenants in the PRS under Equality Law? Unless you are proposing halving Social Sector HB payments too. What would that do to arrears, the subsidies that would have to be paid to Housing Associations etc to keep them solvent? Social Sector rents are already being marginally reduced, and they are all squealing.
It's a problem but if the treasury wants to save money Housing Benefit changes will generate more than anything else would.
And yes there would be squeals but I have a plan for dealing with those...
No it won't.
Housing Benefit which pays all or part of the rents of 4.6 million of the least wealthy households people costs £22 billion a year, of which believe approx 60%+ is for Social Sector and 40%- is for Private Sector. Roughly.
At most you could save a small fraction of that. And note that downward pressure has been in place for many years already, such as a 5 year freeze in cash terms since 2015.
Meanwhile the CGT Relief on main dwellings - which is money for wealthier sections of society - costs more than £25bn a year, and removing that entirely would generate many times more whilst only costing them at most perhaps 15-20% of the profit made on selling their houses.
I would be interested to hear your plan and why it should be targeted at the housing of poorer people.
I think it is quite clear where it should be targeted.
The issue with CGT on principal residences is it makes it hard to move
Let’s say you buy a flat for £100k with a £90k mortgage. Your future partner has also done the same. After a few years you get married and want to buy a small house for your growing family
Small houses are £350k in your area. Nothing grand but nice with a bit of garden. Luckily your flats have each gone up to £150k, and you’ve each had a pay rise so you can borrow the extra £50k. Alls good.
Except that now you have to pay £28k in tax. So you don’t move but cram into too small a flat. And you don’t buy new furniture or repaint the house. And the estate agent goes bust but we don’t care about them
(Moral: you need rollover relief otherwise you will kill ability for most people to move to better properties)
The number one issue is the inflated housing market - further inflated by myriad government decisions since 2010 (easy money, direct support for first time buyers, stamp duty holidays, complete openness to foreign criminalsinvestors, doing nothing to stop developers sitting on undeveloped land) - and the principal change is that we need to move toward a more realistic balance between house prices and earnings.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
People will bid up house prices as high as they can afford. Fox Jr is buying a house near identical to the one I bought 28 years ago. Four times the price, but at current interest rates more affordable than my house with 12% mortgage rates.
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Simply defeatist.
It’s going to be a long time before interest rates return to what most of a sane persuasion would in times gone by have regarded as ‘normal’.
Meanwhile there is plenty that government could do (but won’t) to address the extreme imbalances of the UK housing market.
No, just Market forces. People will usually spend about 40% of income on housing. Low interest rates means higher prices are serviceable, so the market floats in that direction. Normalising interest rates (perhaps going up 0.75% per year for 5 years would be good for a lot of the economy too.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Why would they be stupid enough to do that , the numbers would come out and they would get real bad publicity.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Surely it is England out of line? Wales, Scotland, France, Spain etc etc have higher admission rates.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Why would they be stupid enough to do that , the numbers would come out and they would get real bad publicity.
What is your explanation then ? The figures make no sense. Look at positive cases, they match with population sizes. Scotland should have less than 30 in hospital. It’s likely this time next week England will have less Covid positive in hospital than Scotland. How is that possible ?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
Strange that Scotland without England or vice versa is really unthinkable, and yet there is this difference. Scotland must go the way it chooses.
I referred though to Scotland vs England. England is very far from being the UK. The Welsh and the Irish like to contest too. Happily that's mostly on the playing field.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Why would they be stupid enough to do that , the numbers would come out and they would get real bad publicity.
What is your explanation then ? The figures make no sense. Look at positive cases, they match with population sizes. Scotland should have less than 30 in hospital. It’s likely this time next week England will have less Covid positive in hospital than Scotland. How is that possible ?
Mystery to me unless England not admitting people unless they are critically ill. Hard to believe Scotland are being over cautious and putting everyone in hospital.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Surely it is England out of line? Wales, Scotland, France, Spain etc etc have higher admission rates.
Perhaps England is undertreating?
The Wales figures are silly as they claim to admit twice the number than they have in hospital. Is it really likely that hospitals in England are not treating ill Covid patients ?
We are proud to say we have already delivered tens of tens of millions of medical-grade PPE items to the NHS as part of this contract and are well on track to complete the order on schedule.
Simon Case the 41 year old new head of the civil service. Bit of a steep promotion don't you think?
I fear a yes man.
The alternative was apparently Christopher Wormald, who was one of the more useless and incompetent civil servants at the DfE in the Gove era, in a field notable for the quality of the competition.
It isn’t a good look when there’s such a choice. It suggests either they want a cipher or there’s no talent left in the CS.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
We are proud to say we have already delivered tens of tens of millions of medical-grade PPE items to the NHS as part of this contract and are well on track to complete the order on schedule.
According to the latest Government figures England has only 70 more Covid patients in hospital than Scotland. If things keep going the way they are then within a week England will have less.
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
It's basically inexplicable at this point. Unless Scotland are being beyond cautious about releasing elderly back into care homes I have no explanation for the difference.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
As England has ten times the population of Scotland you would have thought someone in the news may have mentioned it. As the for Wales admission figures I am amazed that the person publishing these stats is not questioning them.
I've Messaged a newspaper editor about it and he said they would look into it so maybe there will be a question or two at the Scottish press briefing soon.
My guess would be that Scotland are massively exaggerating their figures to continue the culture of fear.
Surely it is England out of line? Wales, Scotland, France, Spain etc etc have higher admission rates.
Perhaps England is undertreating?
The Wales figures are silly as they claim to admit twice the number than they have in hospital. Is it really likely that hospitals in England are not treating ill Covid patients ?
Just saying that it is England out of line, not Scotland.
We are proud to say we have already delivered tens of tens of millions of medical-grade PPE items to the NHS as part of this contract and are well on track to complete the order on schedule.
Still an incredible list of incompetence
These kind of lists shared via facebook are invariably complete bollocks. Given the whole situation it was likely not optimal, but the first one I looked at actually delivered what they were contracted to. I'm betting if I kept going down it'd be the same.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Capax imperii nisi imperasset, is what I think every time these best x we never had convs come up. There is no way of telling, hence no point in the convs.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
Spain reporting 23,000 new cases of covid since Friday and with Portugal also over the UK quarantine threshold surely this must be a big concern
Are we heading to quarantine all travel into the UK
I am no expert on covid numbers but it does look very worrying
We should have done it months ago. Particularly from those places where the disease is endemic.
But even if we do ‘quarantine’ arrivals, unless there is a sudden surge of intelligence on the part of HMG it won’t be quarantine, it will be a polite request to stay in your house for two weeks unless there’s an emergency, such as you need more chocolate or you fancy a breath of fresh air, or your eyes need testing.
Spain reporting 23,000 new cases of covid since Friday and with Portugal also over the UK quarantine threshold surely this must be a big concern
Are we heading to quarantine all travel into the UK
I am no expert on covid numbers but it does look very worrying
We 100% should be quarantining all travel into the UK.
We need to be trying to get as many restrictions in the UK lifted as possible. Be as normal as possible within the UK. If that means trying to seal off the world as best as we can with a quarantine and then acting normally domestically then so be it. Its better than having people roam abroad, bringing the virus back with them and making us all suffer with lockdowns again.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
Spain reporting 23,000 new cases of covid since Friday and with Portugal also over the UK quarantine threshold surely this must be a big concern
Are we heading to quarantine all travel into the UK
I am no expert on covid numbers but it does look very worrying
We should have done it months ago. Particularly from those places where the disease is endemic.
But even if we do ‘quarantine’ arrivals, unless there is a sudden surge of intelligence on the part of HMG it won’t be quarantine, it will be a polite request to stay in your house for two weeks unless there’s an emergency, such as you need more chocolate or you fancy a breath of fresh air, or your eyes need testing.
Which is still a quarantine. This country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship - the law is a polite request first and foremost and people generally abide by said requests.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
You should direct your question to the European Commission who are seeking EU wide tax harmonisation
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
Spain reporting 23,000 new cases of covid since Friday and with Portugal also over the UK quarantine threshold surely this must be a big concern
Are we heading to quarantine all travel into the UK
I am no expert on covid numbers but it does look very worrying
We should have done it months ago. Particularly from those places where the disease is endemic.
But even if we do ‘quarantine’ arrivals, unless there is a sudden surge of intelligence on the part of HMG it won’t be quarantine, it will be a polite request to stay in your house for two weeks unless there’s an emergency, such as you need more chocolate or you fancy a breath of fresh air, or your eyes need testing.
Which is still a quarantine. This country isn't an authoritarian dictatorship - the law is a polite request first and foremost and people generally abide by said requests.
No, it’s not a quarantine. It’s an advisory.
Quarantine is where people are kept strictly separate from everyone else until it’s clear they’re not infectious.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
There are those who would counter by arguing where has 60 years of "peaceful" protest got Black Americans? There are still too many examples of Police brutality and actions taken by Police against black men which would never be taken against white men.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
Bluntly, where would war get them? They are outnumbered 5 to 1 by white Americans. Go to war, and they will lose.
Where did peaceful protest get them? Quite a long way, if not as far as they should be.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
It's weird, the folk always going on about the deep, family bond of the UK are often the ones promising that England will fcuk an indy Scotland good and propah.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
As I said, there is a set minimum.
So, yes.
Absurd.
Is tgt the EU you are referring to ?
No, it's @ydoethur's illogical insistence that black is white.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
As I said, there is a set minimum.
So, yes.
Absurd.
You know, William, what I like about you is the way that you bring detailed evidence in support of your claims. When somebody points out that you have misunderstood something and you end up being in the wrong, you don’t go the Hyufd and Contrarion route of one-word personal abuse to try and support an indefensible position.
Or the Telegraph's story was media bullshit. I called it here right away, I said that this was bullshit and that I didn't believe it was going to happen but that if it did I would oppose it. And I was right.
The media keep having these stories and they keep being nonsense. The Government have been 100% consistent that it isn't its place to tell businesses or employees where they should work within the law and nor should it ever be.
Just because the likes of Littlejohn want the peasants to go back to work in offices so only he can work from home, doesn't mean the Government could or should go down that path.
Absolutely unsurprising this isn't happening but I wonder who here who attacked the Government for this stupid story the Telegraph put out despite the fact it was immediately denied by Hancock and was never plausible in the first place?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
As I said, there is a set minimum.
So, yes.
Absurd.
You know, William, what I like about you is the way that you bring detailed evidence in support of your claims. When somebody points out that you have misunderstood something and you end up being in the wrong, you don’t go the Hyufd and Contrarion route of one-word personal abuse to try and support an indefensible position.
But I'm right as you admit. Tax rates vary from state to state, ergo there is no uniformity and there is tax competition between states. Whether there's a set minimum is neither here nor there.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
It's weird, the folk always going on about the deep, family bond of the UK are often the ones promising that England will fcuk an indy Scotland good and propah.
You have to realise that once Scotland leaves the union it becomes a competitor nation and as such will face competition for the same markets
This has nothing to do with family bonds but is all to do with the reality of independence
Some people on twitter (Lionel Barber, and Andrew Neil) are lionising this speech by Democrat John Deberry as to what the democrats should have been saying all along.
Alas they weren't. And they still aren't.
Doubtless the modern democrats would call him an uncle Tom. I think he should be their candidate.
There are those who would counter by arguing where has 60 years of "peaceful" protest got Black Americans? There are still too many examples of Police brutality and actions taken by Police against black men which would never be taken against white men.
Yes, in many respects black Americans have made huge strides - economically, many have levels of prosperity and freedom unknown to their grandparents and it is so much better than it was but it is still not as good as it could or should be.
There comes a point when those who advocate a peaceful and dignified response to institutional racism or terror or state oppression have to contend with the unpalatable truth they are not making progress and the siren voices advocating a more violent response get heard.
It's the same whether it is a protest against Police violence in Wisconsin or electoral fraud in Minsk.
Bluntly, where would war get them? They are outnumbered 5 to 1 by white Americans. Go to war, and they will lose.
Where did peaceful protest get them? Quite a long way, if not as far as they should be.
There's also the factor of a race war being precisely what white US racists want, its necessity and inevitability is almost an article of religious faith for them.
Simon Case the 41 year old new head of the civil service. Bit of a steep promotion don't you think?
I fear a yes man.
The alternative was apparently Christopher Wormald, who was one of the more useless and incompetent civil servants at the DfE in the Gove era, in a field notable for the quality of the competition.
It isn’t a good look when there’s such a choice. It suggests either they want a cipher or there’s no talent left in the CS.
Or both, of course.
Or, as I understand it, a number of possible candidates didn’t apply - because they simply did not want to work with Cummings and Johnson - or were told they wouldn’t get the job if they did eg the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, which has been one of the best performing departments.
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
Scots are already paying higher taxes and the gap will only increase on independence
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
What uniform EU tax rate would that be?
The one they will have to impose as part of fiscal union to save the Euro in the medium term?
Why is a uniform tax rate necessary for a fiscal union? The US doesn't have one.
They do, actually, although as taxes are varied at a state and local level (including income tax) it looks to the outsider as though they don’t.
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
And to the insider who has to pay different tax rates depending on the state in which they live or operate, it looks like there is uniform rate?
As I said, there is a set minimum.
So, yes.
Absurd.
You know, William, what I like about you is the way that you bring detailed evidence in support of your claims. When somebody points out that you have misunderstood something and you end up being in the wrong, you don’t go the Hyufd and Contrarion route of one-word personal abuse to try and support an indefensible position.
But I'm right as you admit. Tax rates vary from state to state, ergo there is no uniformity and there is tax competition between states. Whether there's a set minimum is neither here nor there.
You are saying there is a set minimum, on top of which the states levy their own taxes, and therefore no uniformity.
Are you claiming then that if the EU insisted on minimum federation wide tax rates (as it has already tried to do for corporation tax, of course) that would not be tax harmonisation?
I think there are a number who would have made credible Prime Ministers.
Since 1970, I'd put up the following:
Denis Healey Roy Jenkins William Whitelaw Geoffrey Howe Michael Heseltine Ken Clarke (as you say) George Osborne David Milliband Yvette Cooper
That's nine against the field and possibly a couple of others on the fringes.
Not sure I would agree about Yvette Cooper, her husband might have been a better shout. Also, going back a bit, a lot of people, even non Labour people, had a lot of time for Roy Mason.
Of that list I would say that Jenkins and Clarke really stand out.
I've got to say (and this sounds terrible) I was finding it harder to think of credible candidates the closer I got to today and I didn't want to come over as one of those old fogeys who think all the past politicians are great and all the current ones terrible because it's not that straightforward.
The first six were easy and I think both Osborne and David Milliband would have made fine Prime Ministers.
Of the current crop, I'm genuinely struggling. Rishi Sunak might be on the list but he needs to be tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
And I hope he is - tested in the fires of unpopularity and defeat.
There's a good handful that whilst you're not jumping up and down for them they're capable. (Sunak as said) Patel, Hancock, Gove, Raab, Hunt.
For Labour (I'm not a supporter) I can see only three plausible candidates - Cooper, Nandy and Allin-Khan.
You have to be joking , the only half decent one in that list is Hunt , the rest are crap, liars , cheats and comic singers. On Labour you are worse , 3 absolute donkeys I would not trust to run a bath
Good that you like (or at least don't dislike) Hunt. You may be right, but I'd hope you'd agree that my list has some of the better rather than worse.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
For sure , only madmen would think that England and Scotland would not remain close partners in the event of independence. Would be madness for both nations and not something I would want to see.
I think that is very naive Malc
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
I think you are being blinkered, why is England not cheaper than Ireland for tax and you are using the same brexit fantasy of "we hold all the cards" , for businesses all moving to Berwick or Carlisle. That is naive, bit like the stampede to there predicted when they increased drink prices , and fantasy that when tax went up there would be stampede south. You guys are delusional.
It's weird, the folk always going on about the deep, family bond of the UK are often the ones promising that England will fcuk an indy Scotland good and propah.
You have to realise that once Scotland leaves the union it becomes a competitor nation and as such will face competition for the same markets
This has nothing to do with family bonds but is all to do with the reality of independence
So Scotland is currently unable to compete for business based on national policies? Sounds like something they should correct.
Or the Telegraph's story was media bullshit. I called it here right away, I said that this was bullshit and that I didn't believe it was going to happen but that if it did I would oppose it. And I was right.
The media keep having these stories and they keep being nonsense. The Government have been 100% consistent that it isn't its place to tell businesses or employees where they should work within the law and nor should it ever be.
Just because the likes of Littlejohn want the peasants to go back to work in offices so only he can work from home, doesn't mean the Government could or should go down that path.
Absolutely unsurprising this isn't happening but I wonder who here who attacked the Government for this stupid story the Telegraph put out despite the fact it was immediately denied by Hancock and was never plausible in the first place?
It's the Mail which has been the champion of the "back to your desks" brigade. It has employed people to stand outside Government buildings (never those of private companies) and literally count how many civil servants have arrived for work while praising the relevant Minister to the skies for being "in the office".
This Saturday it turned on its other favourite target - local Government - complaining how few council workers were at their desks.
Boris Johnson works at home and it's hardly a long commute for Rishi Sunak from No.11 to the Treasury yet what works for them apparently isn't allowed for the rest of us.
Once the children are back and the weather closes in WFH will look even more attractive - everyone knows that, even the Government deep down knows that.
Simon Case the 41 year old new head of the civil service. Bit of a steep promotion don't you think?
I fear a yes man.
The alternative was apparently Christopher Wormald, who was one of the more useless and incompetent civil servants at the DfE in the Gove era, in a field notable for the quality of the competition.
It isn’t a good look when there’s such a choice. It suggests either they want a cipher or there’s no talent left in the CS.
Or both, of course.
Or, as I understand it, a number of possible candidates didn’t apply - because they simply did not want to work with Cummings and Johnson - or were told they wouldn’t get the job if they did eg the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, which has been one of the best performing departments.
I wonder if they ever did find the author of the famous ‘truth twisters’ tweet.
Would be hilarious if it turned out to be Case, but seems a bit unlikely.
However, I can understand why nobody would want to work with Cummings given he is about to have to explain a rather nasty alleged case of bullying and unlawful dismissal to an employment tribunal.
Comments
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1300490032042725377?s=20
We'll get some real low-quality uncoordinated crap popping up all over the place with that.
Of course, nearby residents will *always* object to new development but I think the coalition reforms toward planning during the 2010 parliament (giving areas a broad quota and requiring local neighborhood plans with local buy-in) were a good way to do this.
It just feels too broad brush and simplistic to me, which is usually a sign of someone not having done enough hard thinking and some massive cock ups to come.
Why is the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace being left out of all these best Tory to replace Boris conversations?.Unlike most of his cabinet teammates he has hardly put a foot as a minister and he has CV prior to politics of serving in Ulster for the Army and then having a go at setting up a business
On the 28th August 83 Covid positive patients were admitted to hospital in Wales. According to the same figures Wales had 41 Covid positive patients in hospital on the 28th August.
A very different form of New Labour.
The first stage is to replace Stamp Duty with an equivalent annual property tax, with provision to delay payment until the property is sold for those on low incomes. Then, progressively, the tax rate is edged up, which should lead to an equivalent slow decline in property prices and a rapid realisation from those sitting on empty prime UK property as ‘investment’ that there are better places to put their money.
It seems like only you and me are interested in this.
Scotland needs a friend or two to make 'escape' work. It would have been different 10 years ago. The most likely and best friends are the English, and that applies always.
Apart from resigning his seat and going to live in New Zealand.
(Assuming you mean Bryan Gould.)
Want lower house prices? Then stick up interest rates. Just don't expect any thanks!
Roll forward and many of a conservative persuasion are defending the same reforms on the basis of the rights they give neighbours to object to stuff being done on adjacent land!
If the press want to present it as some massive turning point then my betting balance is totally happy with that.
It’s going to be a long time before interest rates return to what most of a sane persuasion would in times gone by have regarded as ‘normal’.
Meanwhile there is plenty that government could do (but won’t) to address the extreme imbalances of the UK housing market.
I think Maggie was required reading for us all though, so just Williams in the frame.
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1300492380001513473?s=19
That video is awful. We could, we might,
Trump : we will.
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1300481849085571072?s=19
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/02/politics/biden-philadelphia-transcript/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-takes-part-in-most-informative-sexual-harassment-training-session-for-mps-12060511
"The session began with a film about a male employer who began behaving inappropriately towards a young female employee..."
Perhaps England is undertreating?
https://vimeo.com/316263399
I referred though to Scotland vs England. England is very far from being the UK. The Welsh and the Irish like to contest too. Happily that's mostly on the playing field.
I fear a yes man.
We are proud to say we have already delivered tens of tens of millions
of medical-grade PPE items to the NHS as part of this contract and are
well on track to complete the order on schedule.
It isn’t a good look when there’s such a choice. It suggests either they want a cipher or there’s no talent left in the CS.
Or both, of course.
Scotland and RUK would become competitor nations and with a near certain Westminster conservative government both company and personal taxation will be much more competitive than Scotland
If independence becomes likely time to invest heavily in Berwick to Carlisle as businesses and employees locate across the border into England
There will be a move by business to gain tax advantages and of course Scotland will be facing a uniform EU tax rate which is higher than the UK
You seem to think independence will be a walk in the park and that is simply for the birds
https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1300465798696382464?s=19
Are we heading to quarantine all travel into the UK
I am no expert on covid numbers but it does look very worrying
But even if we do ‘quarantine’ arrivals, unless there is a sudden surge of intelligence on the part of HMG it won’t be quarantine, it will be a polite request to stay in your house for two weeks unless there’s an emergency, such as you need more chocolate or you fancy a breath of fresh air, or your eyes need testing.
We need to be trying to get as many restrictions in the UK lifted as possible. Be as normal as possible within the UK. If that means trying to seal off the world as best as we can with a quarantine and then acting normally domestically then so be it. Its better than having people roam abroad, bringing the virus back with them and making us all suffer with lockdowns again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53977821
Um...
Put it this way, they have a uniform minimum tax rate.
I would add though that one reason why Europe keeps struggling to drag its people along with its dogma is that it has a stupid habit of going for as much as it thinks it needs, rather than as much as it can actually command popular support for.
Quarantine is where people are kept strictly separate from everyone else until it’s clear they’re not infectious.
So, yes.
Where did peaceful protest get them? Quite a long way, if not as far as they should be.
If the intention is to shake things up then not going for a native Sir Humphrey Permanent Secretary seems the logical course of action.
Arguably, May after Grenfell as well.
https://youtu.be/_GkB9nIErKI
The media keep having these stories and they keep being nonsense. The Government have been 100% consistent that it isn't its place to tell businesses or employees where they should work within the law and nor should it ever be.
Just because the likes of Littlejohn want the peasants to go back to work in offices so only he can work from home, doesn't mean the Government could or should go down that path.
Absolutely unsurprising this isn't happening but I wonder who here who attacked the Government for this stupid story the Telegraph put out despite the fact it was immediately denied by Hancock and was never plausible in the first place?
This has nothing to do with family bonds but is all to do with the reality of independence
I thought the Tories liked the private sector and Cummings was a fan of silicon valley? I'm not saying I would have expected Elon Musk.
We'll see how they shake things up. I suppose if it's a disaster they should get found out and be punished.
https://twitter.com/ArsenalHomerton/status/1300419446801158144
Are you claiming then that if the EU insisted on minimum federation wide tax rates (as it has already tried to do for corporation tax, of course) that would not be tax harmonisation?
Because if so, I have a bridge for sale.
This Saturday it turned on its other favourite target - local Government - complaining how few council workers were at their desks.
Boris Johnson works at home and it's hardly a long commute for Rishi Sunak from No.11 to the Treasury yet what works for them apparently isn't allowed for the rest of us.
Once the children are back and the weather closes in WFH will look even more attractive - everyone knows that, even the Government deep down knows that.
Would be hilarious if it turned out to be Case, but seems a bit unlikely.
However, I can understand why nobody would want to work with Cummings given he is about to have to explain a rather nasty alleged case of bullying and unlawful dismissal to an employment tribunal.