Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
You might be confusing qualification for the Euros? Only 16 European countries will qualify for the 2026 World Cup, in the ratings at the time of the last draw Wales were 12th, RoI 22nd, NI 26th, Scotland 28th. Id expect 1, possibly 2 of those to qualify for a 48 team World Cup.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
I think Johnson should have whatever upgrades he wants but he has to do all of the work himself while it is livestreamed on Facebook. He strikes me as the sort of flabby useless fucker who can't use a ratcheting pipe threader.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
Who do you think they are going to vote for?
3-4% is too much but the removal of basic rate interest relief would remove a risk from the market.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
Who do you think they are going to vote for?
3-4% is too much but the removal of basic rate interest relief would remove a risk from the market.
Agree it is too much, but the majority of landlords would still vote Tory and the houses would still have people in them.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
And done properly does not need to be redone every 5 years.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
Why doesn't Scotland have a DPP outside of the Cabinet?
I do find it an odd concept that someone with so much power can answer directly to politicians and have responsibilities to the cabinet.
Strangely, that is not a novel observation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate#Calls_for_reform ...In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professors Hans Köchler and Robert Black said— "It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998." The judges of Scotland's highest court came to share this view. In a [2012] submission to the commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommended that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. They noted various ways in which the Lord Advocate's roles had caused problems for the judicial system, including the ability "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." ..
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
It's a translation problem: in some countries the head of state and head of government are the same (France, USA), and in some they are separate (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Germany).
That's why so many London workers commute from the south-east.
I'm very interested to see what the season ticket reforms are. It could really help a lot of people looking to do 2-4 days from home.
Probably only 80% of the price for 60% of the travel. I reckon they'll offer me £4k for a 3-day ticket, as opposed to £5.5k for a 7-day one.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
What I'm hoping for is the regulator makes them almost proportional and includes off peak travel in all season tickets plus a certain number of peak journeys per year. So a full season ticket for say £5k gets you 500 peak journeys per year plus off peak travel, £4k gets you 400 plus off peak, £3k gets 300 and so on. It's the fairest system and gives flexibility for when you want to use your peak journeys. Some weeks you might want to just go in one time and others you might want to do a full week in office.
I'd love that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Government has a twin-interest: pleasing commuters and passengers, but also establishing the railways on a financially sustainable basis.
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
I take your point, but when it comes to making a claim in court there is no in-between. Your evidence either is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or it is not. Salmond alleges a conspiracy of lies against him, that 9 women actively chose to actively perjure themselves in court. Every other claim accusation and suggestion spins out from this central plurality. And I just don't buy the "they all lied" story". Have no idea of their identity, don't want to know. I just don't see how that many people can stand up and do that - knowing what it will do if they are believed, knowing that it is a lie. And not even a lie for personal gain, one allegedly concocted for factional political gain.
Does he actually confirm they all perjured themselves?
I thought he was careful to avoid that and instead is making very serious allegations about others.
More than one thing can be true. The women can be telling the truth, while Salmond's allegations about dodgy Crown Office behaviour can also be true.
Your latter point is entirely correct - both can be true. However, both are also intertwined. The alleged dodgy Crown Office behaviour was to push for a trial where AS strenuously denies the 9 women's allegations (which means that he absolutely is saying they lied in court).
If the women were telling the truth then there was no conspiracy to convict Salmond for internecine purposes...
Lots of defence witnesses denied the claims of the complainants under oath and prosecution had not corroborating witnesses at all and jury found the defence witnesses versions to be the truth and found him not guilty on all counts
How many misleading sentiments in three lines here? Most important is that a jury finding of not guilty only tells us that there was at least a doubt. To convict a defendant the jury have to be absolutely sure of guilt, not pretty certain. Such a does not say that any one witness, either prosecution or defence was certainly either telling or not telling the truth. It only tells you that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test has not been met.
And what else did he say at the beginning and end of the interview? C'mon, you know you can do it if you grit your teeth and think of the United Kingdom(s).
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
Yeah I think it's from 2026 onwards that there's no automatic qualification, I just remember reading about it somewhere. Maybe I'm mistaking it for the Euros though. It shouldn't be an impediment to a UK/RoI bid though. I think only NI and Scotland would struggle to qualify the UEFA and that's really only going to be a few matches anyway.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
Have a mini-tournament amongst the joint hosts, with the winner getting automatic entry while the rest have to qualify as usual?
I think Johnson should have whatever upgrades he wants but he has to do all of the work himself while it is livestreamed on Facebook. He strikes me as the sort of flabby useless fucker who can't use a ratcheting pipe threader.
Make it pay per view and it could go from costing the taxpayer to a source of government income.
I think Johnson should have whatever upgrades he wants but he has to do all of the work himself while it is livestreamed on Facebook. He strikes me as the sort of flabby useless fucker who can't use a ratcheting pipe threader.
Make it pay per view and it could go from costing the taxpayer to a source of government income.
Revive Changing Rooms and have them do it while the PM is off at a G7 summit?
That's why so many London workers commute from the south-east.
I'm very interested to see what the season ticket reforms are. It could really help a lot of people looking to do 2-4 days from home.
Probably only 80% of the price for 60% of the travel. I reckon they'll offer me £4k for a 3-day ticket, as opposed to £5.5k for a 7-day one.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
What I'm hoping for is the regulator makes them almost proportional and includes off peak travel in all season tickets plus a certain number of peak journeys per year. So a full season ticket for say £5k gets you 500 peak journeys per year plus off peak travel, £4k gets you 400 plus off peak, £3k gets 300 and so on. It's the fairest system and gives flexibility for when you want to use your peak journeys. Some weeks you might want to just go in one time and others you might want to do a full week in office.
I'd love that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Government has a twin-interest: pleasing commuters and passengers, but also establishing the railways on a financially sustainable basis.
Yeah me neither and I've got the arsehole Sadiq to deal with in London who definitely won't be signing up for any flexible ticketing. We'll be lucky to get anything in London.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
nobody is arguing any differently - why do you continually battle reality in some doomed attempt to prove you are not wrong - the PM is head of government - the Head of State is the queen - it's just a fact. It is the same here in Denmark - our queen is Head of State but our Statsminister is in charge - it's really not a controversial topic or worthy of hundreds of posts.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
Nope, but it would be a more popular tax than a land tax...
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
Nope, but it would be a more popular tax than a land tax...
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
It's a translation problem: in some countries the head of state and head of government are the same (France, USA), and in some they are separate (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Germany).
The French PM is Head of Government but appointed by the President who is Head of State.
In most countries there is a President or constitutional monarch who is Head of State and a PM who is Head of Government eg France, us, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Iraq, Italy, Spain, Egypt, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc. In Germany there is a President and a Chancellor who is effectively the German PM.
Here the Queen is Head of State and the PM Head of Government appointed by and acting on behalf of the Queen.
A few countries have a President only who is both Head of State and Head of Government eg the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa and Argentina. Saudi Arabia vests the role of both Head of State and Head of Government in the King.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
Your assumptions are bollox, go read the actual facts.
I see you're in your usual cheery mood.
Grateful if you'd correct the specific errors in my account, for the education of us all.
He did not have any previous complaints in 30 years, initially one woman raised a "concern". Around this they built a new process that was only for previous minister's , not publiced , not through parliament etc. They then hauled in Salmond and he did not do as tehy suspected and go quietly and so they got tough but he soon showed them they were in trouble and going to lose. They suddenly then decided it needed police and despite teh original person's "concern" they gave details to Crown agent , he tried to give to police but they would not take it. Then it suddenly became 9 people , you can go and read about the whatsapp groups where they discussed the case, the messages from Murrel etc, they are all public knowledge now. Salmond reckons they wanted to drag out till police court case , police had 22 detectives on it , hundreds questioned etc. The government's QC's threatened to resign and they were lambasted by judge and case thrown out , awarded Salmond extraordinary costs on a scale never seen before. In the police case all charges were found not guilty , defence had eye witnesses , people were proven to have not even been there when crime supposed to take place, and jury of women threw them all out. Since then they have been fighting a rearguard action by banning production of evidence demanded by inquiry etc. They have Crown office in the team and so it goes in circles, who knows if they will survive but most people by now with any brains know they did it, just a case of whether badness, incompetence or mix of both. So it will all remain as allegations unless the government is forced to show the evidence, Salmond has seen it as part of the police case even though it was not allowed to be used in court for some reason.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I think Johnson should have whatever upgrades he wants but he has to do all of the work himself while it is livestreamed on Facebook. He strikes me as the sort of flabby useless fucker who can't use a ratcheting pipe threader.
Make it pay per view and it could go from costing the taxpayer to a source of government income.
Revive Changing Rooms and have them do it while the PM is off at a G7 summit?
If I remember the format right, that would leave the decor up to CX or the Chief Whip. It would definitely involve lots of shit quality MDF and awful stencils on the walls.
Maybe we could do a heads of Gvt version where Boris swaps with Macron?
That's why so many London workers commute from the south-east.
I'm very interested to see what the season ticket reforms are. It could really help a lot of people looking to do 2-4 days from home.
Probably only 80% of the price for 60% of the travel. I reckon they'll offer me £4k for a 3-day ticket, as opposed to £5.5k for a 7-day one.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
What I'm hoping for is the regulator makes them almost proportional and includes off peak travel in all season tickets plus a certain number of peak journeys per year. So a full season ticket for say £5k gets you 500 peak journeys per year plus off peak travel, £4k gets you 400 plus off peak, £3k gets 300 and so on. It's the fairest system and gives flexibility for when you want to use your peak journeys. Some weeks you might want to just go in one time and others you might want to do a full week in office.
I'd love that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Government has a twin-interest: pleasing commuters and passengers, but also establishing the railways on a financially sustainable basis.
Yeah me neither and I've got the arsehole Sadiq to deal with in London who definitely won't be signing up for any flexible ticketing. We'll be lucky to get anything in London.
Which is stupid as with Oyster it's the easiest place to actually implement as many flexible options as possible. The issue that the traditional commuter trains will have with your suggestion of flexible 400 peak journeys is counting them properly / 'revenue protection'. I suspect that they may go as far as 'you can have a 3 day a week season ticket - but you need to specify when you buy it which 3 days of the week and that's going to be printed on the ticket... with a total lack of thought about what is actually possible these days if they were willing to think about it'
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
I think all three are going to be given places for 2026 - it's now 48 teams (Alan Partridge's socc-o-meter is pretty close to the format!) - so I guess there's less pressure on numbers.
I reckon three spots for the UK and RoI in 2030 would be fair. England, obviously, get one and then the other four can play a round robin format to determine the other two spots. And the two that don't qualify can go into regular UEFA qualifying.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
They would be largely, perhaps completely, offset by the millions of tenants who are now owner-occupiers and therefore much more likely to vote Conservatives.
That's why so many London workers commute from the south-east.
I'm very interested to see what the season ticket reforms are. It could really help a lot of people looking to do 2-4 days from home.
Probably only 80% of the price for 60% of the travel. I reckon they'll offer me £4k for a 3-day ticket, as opposed to £5.5k for a 7-day one.
I'm not expecting a good deal.
What I'm hoping for is the regulator makes them almost proportional and includes off peak travel in all season tickets plus a certain number of peak journeys per year. So a full season ticket for say £5k gets you 500 peak journeys per year plus off peak travel, £4k gets you 400 plus off peak, £3k gets 300 and so on. It's the fairest system and gives flexibility for when you want to use your peak journeys. Some weeks you might want to just go in one time and others you might want to do a full week in office.
I'd love that, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Government has a twin-interest: pleasing commuters and passengers, but also establishing the railways on a financially sustainable basis.
Yeah me neither and I've got the arsehole Sadiq to deal with in London who definitely won't be signing up for any flexible ticketing. We'll be lucky to get anything in London.
Which is stupid as with Oyster it's the easiest place to actually implement as many flexible options as possible. The issue that the traditional commuter trains will have with your suggestion of flexible 400 peak journeys is counting them properly / 'revenue protection'. I suspect that they may go as far as 'you can have a 3 day a week season ticket - but you need to specify when you buy it which 3 days of the week and that's going to be printed on the ticket... with a total lack of thought about what is actually possible these days if they were willing to think about it'
The issue is, as you say, revenue protection.
The entire complexity of the train fare system is designed to get the most out of people, while allowing the people who dig to find cheap fares to find their pot of gold. Since the ones who dig are the ones most likely to complain....
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
It's a translation problem: in some countries the head of state and head of government are the same (France, USA), and in some they are separate (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Germany).
The French PM is Head of Government but appointed by the President as Head of State.
In most countries there is a President or constitutional monarch who is Head of State and a PM who is Head of Government eg France, us, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Iraq, Italy, Spain, Egypt, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc. In Germany there is a President and a Chancellor who is effectively the German PM.
Here the Queen is Head of State and the PM Head of Government appointed by and acting on behalf of the Queen.
A few countries have a President only who is both Head of State and Head of Government eg the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa and Argentina. Saudi Arabia vests the role of both Head of State and Head of Government in the King.
Yes, interesting that America, with its obsession with checks and balances, did not include this most obvious one at the start.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Harold Wilson lived at home in Lord North Street.
The whole thing is Mrs Thatcher's fault, along with every other Prime Minister who has turned down a pay rise. Winston Churchill was on £10,000 a year, which would be more like £500,000 today.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
No the PM is not the UK Head of Government, HM The Queen is the UK Head of Government, the PM is merely her chief minister.
The Queen is Macron's equivalent as Head of State here, that is why when French Presidents come here they go to state dinners and meetings at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle with the Queen not state dinners at No 10, even if the PM may also meet them and attend such dinners.
At the G7 Boris only shakes hands with Macron as the Queen's chief minister, not on his own terms, in the order of political hierarchy Boris is the equivalent of Castex the French PM.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
nobody is arguing any differently - why do you continually battle reality in some doomed attempt to prove you are not wrong - the PM is head of government - the Head of State is the queen - it's just a fact. It is the same here in Denmark - our queen is Head of State but our Statsminister is in charge - it's really not a controversial topic or worthy of hundreds of posts.
Yes but the PM only holds his role as head of government in the UK as a result of his appointment by the monarch who is Head of State, same as the French PM only holds his role as head of government as a result of his appointment by the French President who is Head of State.
So as I originally correctly pointed out Boris is the equivalent of the French PM, not Macron who is the French equivalent of the Queen.
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
Yeah I think it's from 2026 onwards that there's no automatic qualification, I just remember reading about it somewhere. Maybe I'm mistaking it for the Euros though. It shouldn't be an impediment to a UK/RoI bid though. I think only NI and Scotland would struggle to qualify the UEFA and that's really only going to be a few matches anyway.
Not sure if only NI and Scotland would struggle.
UEFA are only getting three extra places in 2026 with the expansion and European qualification is pretty competitive. Looking at the 2018 tournament, NI and Ireland were two of the four teams who missed out in the play-offs (Italy and Greece were the others) and Netherlands famously didn't even make the play-offs.
Wales and Scotland missed the play-offs, although both have improved since (in Wales' case a lot - although whether it will be sustained to 2026 and beyond has to be in question).
So it would be a real surprise if England miss out in 2026/30 with expanded numbers (although the Dutch would have done so last time even with the expanded numbers so never say never). All other nations in the British Isles would have some chance but none of them are much better than a toss up to get in.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
nobody is arguing any differently - why do you continually battle reality in some doomed attempt to prove you are not wrong - the PM is head of government - the Head of State is the queen - it's just a fact. It is the same here in Denmark - our queen is Head of State but our Statsminister is in charge - it's really not a controversial topic or worthy of hundreds of posts.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
On the length of a generation; I think it should be 15/16 years. I used to think longer, but GenX, GenY etc are that length so seems a reasonable benchmark to me.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course she does, hence every new PM must first go to Buckingham Palace and kiss her hand to be offered and accept the role.
I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.
Well until after the judicial review there were two maximum, that suddenly expanded to 9 , and if you listened to Salmond about the whatsapp meetings , who was involved and other stuff that is about you would be able to have clearer picture. Unfortunately you have to be very careful what you write as we have seen several Salmond supporters arrested on flimsy at best charges later thrown out etc. You just have to go get the details and piece it together yourself. Allegedly if you know the names ( to be clear I do not ) then it is clear what happened. My personal opinion is that they wanted Salmond out , he did not just fold and they knew they were going to lose judicial review and it mushroomed from there. Whether we will ever know the full truth is questionable as it seems Scotland is similar to banana republic and politicians are able to hide anything they want.
Wowsers if that's true. I just can't get my head around the mindset that would propel me to join in a conspiracy to lie to the police and then lie in court. One or two people for personal gain / out of fear maybe. But 9 of them for internecine fighting inside a political party?
Perhaps Tories angling to persuade people to vote Tory to stop the SNP might want to consider what they are asking. One party asking for your vote is openly corrupt, lies to pervert the rule of law for political reasons, and the other is the SNP.
A good time to be a LibDem!
It seems to me, looking from afar, that the reality of this case is probably somewhere in between.
Salmond obviously wasn't a monk and says so himself. He liked a drink and had an amorous nature - that's not illegal. He was also a powerful man, both physically and in terms of people's careers and so on. In reality, there probably were situations where his understanding of what was happening differed from his guest's understanding, and where his judgment was awry - where he felt he was being romantic and they felt pressured. A court determined that there wasn't evidence there to convict, so he's an innocent man.
But not every person who walks free from court an innocent person is a victim of a stitch up. For many it's just circumstance - there is evidence that they may be guilty, prosecutors acted in good faith, but a full hearing of the evidence determines they are not guilty.
I feel sympathy for anyone in Salmond's situation in that an investigation and trial are awful to go through as an innocent person. I also feel sympathy for others involved in the case - maybe some accusers exaggerated for political reasons, but it's very likely to be true some were very upset about the situation as they saw it.
On the other side of it, I assume the general nature of Salmond's behaviour after late night meetings was the subject of gossip, but the details were not known and whether or not any crime was involved was uncertain. So when the story began to break, political rivals saw the opportunity to rid themselves of a troublesome priest... while at the same time it was possible for those involved to convince themselves that they were acting to help alleged victims. Did it involve Nicola Sturgeon concocting a tissue of lies with wicked plotters? Probably not. But it probably did involve a degree of encouragement of accusers and putting pressure on investigators and prosecutors.
It's a sad as well as politically damaging story. Few people come out of it well, but it's not a good versus evil story where you need to decide which is which. It's a story about significant human flaws.
I take your point, but when it comes to making a claim in court there is no in-between. Your evidence either is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or it is not. Salmond alleges a conspiracy of lies against him, that 9 women actively chose to actively perjure themselves in court. Every other claim accusation and suggestion spins out from this central plurality. And I just don't buy the "they all lied" story". Have no idea of their identity, don't want to know. I just don't see how that many people can stand up and do that - knowing what it will do if they are believed, knowing that it is a lie. And not even a lie for personal gain, one allegedly concocted for factional political gain.
Does he actually confirm they all perjured themselves?
I thought he was careful to avoid that and instead is making very serious allegations about others.
More than one thing can be true. The women can be telling the truth, while Salmond's allegations about dodgy Crown Office behaviour can also be true.
Your latter point is entirely correct - both can be true. However, both are also intertwined. The alleged dodgy Crown Office behaviour was to push for a trial where AS strenuously denies the 9 women's allegations (which means that he absolutely is saying they lied in court).
If the women were telling the truth then there was no conspiracy to convict Salmond for internecine purposes...
Lots of defence witnesses denied the claims of the complainants under oath and prosecution had not corroborating witnesses at all and jury found the defence witnesses versions to be the truth and found him not guilty on all counts
What might be instructive, is to read up the history of miscarriages of justice. Many times, people were sent down with what seemed like water tight cases.
The way that a structure of half-truths, lies, ignorance, ignoring the truth etc can accrete into an apparently solid case is fascinating.
What almost never happens is simple frame up. It seems, often, to be a series of "improvements" to a case that appeared solid at the start.
I agree , they had an initial concern and did not report and said we will keep in SNP for future use. I think they wanted to ensure Salmond did not come back , made a horlicks of their retrospective policy , got into a real mess and then it mushroomed to 9 people , likely to ensure Moorov Principle and it just got worse and worse as the only thing that I believe could have been a "real" crime had witness that swore on oath the complainant was not even there and as we know jury found him innocent on all charges. It rumbles on with government hiding many documents , evidence , etc despite Sturgeon saying they would have free access to all documentation etc. Personally I think even if she survives then she will not last long now as at best she is damaged goods.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
I think that's much too optimistic. It may seem like a logical way of proceeding, but politics isn't logical: creating a wealth tax in one type of property asset is just as likely to be used as a lever to open up other property assets (above all primary residences - a multi-trillion pound cash mountain that any government would love to devour) to the same. To the millions who own neither their own home nor a rental property, one 'privileged' property owner looks much like any other.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
And done properly does not need to be redone every 5 years.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
It perhaps does if there is a poorly house trained incontinent pooch about!
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Harold Wilson lived at home in Lord North Street.
The whole thing is Mrs Thatcher's fault, along with every other Prime Minister who has turned down a pay rise. Winston Churchill was on £10,000 a year, which would be more like £500,000 today.
Worth recalling Gordon Brown in this context who turned down a pay rise, not for himself but for his successor.
Covid-19 data Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countries In many parts of the world, official death tolls undercount the total number of fatalities
As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
No it doesn't.
If its conspiracy it ties into those who are allegedly conspiring. The conspirators could be using the 9 women to further their own agenda, without the 9 being perjurers.
This is getting ever more obtuse. One of two things is true - Salmond did the things he is accused of, or he did not. The conspiracy is that he was fitted up, where the initial attempt to use an internal enquiry ended up having to pressure the police to bring about a prosecution.
Lets assume what you just said is true. How specifically could the conspirators use the women to further their own agenda and them tell the truth on the stand?
If what they said is true then Salmond committed the offences. The court found that he didn't commit the alleged offences - so either they told the truth but were disbelieved or they lied.
I can absolutely believe the telling the truth yet didn't secure a conviction scenario - it happens. Problem is that such a happenstance isn't them being part of a wider conspiracy to frame him (as in this scenario he did it).
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
I think that's much too optimistic. It may seem like a logical way of proceeding, but politics isn't logical: creating a wealth tax in one type of property asset is just as likely to be used as a lever to open up other property assets (above all primary residences - a multi-trillion pound cash mountain that any government would love to devour) to the same. To the millions who own neither their own home nor a rental property, one 'privileged' property owner looks much like any other.
The country is still majority owner occupiers and that number, because of actions against landlords, is rising again. I just don't see it at all. It might win Labour a few seats in London but ultimately people will simply vote down any attempt to tax primary residences.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course she does, hence every new PM must first go to Buckingham Palace and kiss her hand to be offered and accept the role.
That's called a ceremony.
The voters and MPs make the choice, not the ceremonial figurehead.
You could replace HMQ with an inanimate statue the hand of which must be kissed it wouldn't change the decision making process or mean the inanimate statue made the decision.
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
Yeah I think it's from 2026 onwards that there's no automatic qualification, I just remember reading about it somewhere. Maybe I'm mistaking it for the Euros though. It shouldn't be an impediment to a UK/RoI bid though. I think only NI and Scotland would struggle to qualify the UEFA and that's really only going to be a few matches anyway.
Not sure if only NI and Scotland would struggle.
UEFA are only getting three extra places in 2026 with the expansion and European qualification is pretty competitive. Looking at the 2018 tournament, NI and Ireland were two of the four teams who missed out in the play-offs (Italy and Greece were the others) and Netherlands famously didn't even make the play-offs.
Wales and Scotland missed the play-offs, although both have improved since (in Wales' case a lot - although whether it will be sustained to 2026 and beyond has to be in question).
So it would be a real surprise if England miss out in 2026/30 with expanded numbers (although the Dutch would have done so last time even with the expanded numbers so never say never). All other nations in the British Isles would have some chance but none of them are much better than a toss up to get in.
Bar England they are all odds against to qualify for a 48 team world cup (unless hosting).
Hosts don't automatically qualify now because the tournament has been expanded so much. It's very difficult to not qualify from Europe.
I'm not sure that's correct for the World Cup. It is for the European Championships, but I believe it is still the case that hosts qualify for the World Cup.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
I think all three are going to be given places for 2026 - it's now 48 teams (Alan Partridge's socc-o-meter is pretty close to the format!) - so I guess there's less pressure on numbers.
I reckon three spots for the UK and RoI in 2030 would be fair. England, obviously, get one and then the other four can play a round robin format to determine the other two spots. And the two that don't qualify can go into regular UEFA qualifying.
It's easier for 2026 as there is an increase in places overall. In that sense, nobody "loses" - CONCACAF still get 3.5 places as in 2022, and it removes two traditionally strong teams (USA and Mexico) from qualifying - so they're happy.
In 2030, you'd be taking places off regions (presumably UEFA mainly) making an already rather competitive qualifying tournament even more so, creating a problem for getting the votes.
It feels surmountable. But I'd not be totally surprised if the way it was avoided was saying "exceptionally, we'll simply have no host's place this year and take our chances in qualifying".
Why doesn't Scotland have a DPP outside of the Cabinet?
I do find it an odd concept that someone with so much power can answer directly to politicians and have responsibilities to the cabinet.
Issue is he is only answering to the governing party, he is threatening all other politicians with charges. Also the Lord Advocate remarkably refuses to tell Murdo Fraser whether failure to comply with a search warrant from a court is a criminal offence.
Completely agree, Malc. The equivalent role of our DPP shouldn't answer directly to the politicians, it's a real recipe for disaster as that person has the power to target individuals as is very clearly the case this time. It's actually quite frightening that essentially the FM has the ability to tell the Lord Advocate that he needs to bring down a political rival and to then disallow any evidence from an inquiry that's looking into these allegations. It's the kind of stuff we see from Putin against Navalny, unfathomable that a democratic country like Scotland has also got these issues of separation of power.
Absolutely it is unbelievable outside a dictatorship.
Also, a question for @DavidL and other legal people, does parliamentary privilege exist in Scotland? This idea that an MSP can be prosecuted by some jumped up politically motivated fool is really worrying. It's an effective gag on MSPs talking about a huge public interest case. Isn't that something that needs to be rectified?
I did ask Dave (pbuh) if he did kiss hands of the Queen when he became PM, he said the only time he kissed the Queen's hands was when he was sworn of the Privy Council.
That scene from The Queen has been seared on the mind of every PM since.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
I think that's much too optimistic. It may seem like a logical way of proceeding, but politics isn't logical: creating a wealth tax in one type of property asset is just as likely to be used as a lever to open up other property assets (above all primary residences - a multi-trillion pound cash mountain that any government would love to devour) to the same. To the millions who own neither their own home nor a rental property, one 'privileged' property owner looks much like any other.
The country is still majority owner occupiers and that number, because of actions against landlords, is rising again. I just don't see it at all. It might win Labour a few seats in London but ultimately people will simply vote down any attempt to tax primary residences.
There are 3 separate issues when it comes to primary residences:-
Stamp Duty Council Tax Capital gains tax
The last is a complete no-no imagine the dementia tax x10 but a land tax that swallowed both Stamp Duty and Council Tax would solve a problem of how do you handle 30 year out of date council tax valuations.
As for landlords my biggest concern is that there is still an incentive for amateurs to borrow money and become landlords - I would prefer that that was discouraged with build to let encouraged to get pensions funds to build decent flats.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
And done properly does not need to be redone every 5 years.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
It perhaps does if there is a poorly house trained incontinent pooch about!
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
And done properly does not need to be redone every 5 years.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
It perhaps does if there is a poorly house trained incontinent pooch about!
Also, a question for @DavidL and other legal people, does parliamentary privilege exist in Scotland? This idea that an MSP can be prosecuted by some jumped up politically motivated fool is really worrying. It's an effective gag on MSPs talking about a huge public interest case. Isn't that something that needs to be rectified?
Thank God that the SNP doesn't hold all the Westminster seats then.....
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
And done properly does not need to be redone every 5 years.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
It perhaps does if there is a poorly house trained incontinent pooch about!
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
It's so tense after the election: will HM the Q endorse the person the voters thought they were getting for PM. Or will she send them away - and call for Peter Bone instead?
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course she does, hence every new PM must first go to Buckingham Palace and kiss her hand to be offered and accept the role.
That's called a ceremony.
The voters and MPs make the choice, not the ceremonial figurehead.
You could replace HMQ with an inanimate statue the hand of which must be kissed it wouldn't change the decision making process or mean the inanimate statue made the decision.
A ceremony which under our constitution is the moment the PM actually gets the role from the monarch.
The voters merely elect MPs to the House of Commons, they do not elect the PM. Hence the monarch may appoint a new PM after a general election, as the Queen did with Blair in 1997 for example, or mid Parliament, as the monarch did when they appointed May or Boris for example.
The Queen follows the convention that she appoints the PM who can command the support of a majority of MPs in the Commons, technically she could appoint the leader of the Opposition to be PM if she wanted to even without an election, however it would be against convention and impractical as they could not get anything through Parliament.
As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
No it doesn't.
If its conspiracy it ties into those who are allegedly conspiring. The conspirators could be using the 9 women to further their own agenda, without the 9 being perjurers.
This is getting ever more obtuse. One of two things is true - Salmond did the things he is accused of, or he did not. The conspiracy is that he was fitted up, where the initial attempt to use an internal enquiry ended up having to pressure the police to bring about a prosecution.
Lets assume what you just said is true. How specifically could the conspirators use the women to further their own agenda and them tell the truth on the stand?
If what they said is true then Salmond committed the offences. The court found that he didn't commit the alleged offences - so either they told the truth but were disbelieved or they lied.
I can absolutely believe the telling the truth yet didn't secure a conviction scenario - it happens. Problem is that such a happenstance isn't them being part of a wider conspiracy to frame him (as in this scenario he did it).
I do wonder if there is a difference here between a criminal and civil level of proof.
Rather like OJ Simpson being found not guilty of murder, but being done on a civil offence.
Us plebs tend to move the settee out of the way before hanging the wallpaper.
Now we know the error of our ways.
It will certainly be a bit confusing for those afflicted by severe short sightedness.
I wonder whether further confusion could be sown (sorry for pun) if she has also has a suit made for Johnson in matching fabric? I know it is a bit mean, but I can't help thinking such a garment might need slightly more material than went on the sofa!
Also, a question for @DavidL and other legal people, does parliamentary privilege exist in Scotland? This idea that an MSP can be prosecuted by some jumped up politically motivated fool is really worrying. It's an effective gag on MSPs talking about a huge public interest case. Isn't that something that needs to be rectified?
Yes, but it is not called exactly the same thing, and is limited by comparison.
Here, the relevant thing is perhaps that privilege is limited by contempt of court.
On the length of a generation; I think it should be 15/16 years. I used to think longer, but GenX, GenY etc are that length so seems a reasonable benchmark to me.
Conundrum for the SNP. Take measures (sex education, free condoms/pill etc) to reduce teenage pregnancies and improve life outcomes for Scots or don't and provide statistical evidence for a generation being shorter (and gain a referendum, independence and improve* life outcomes for Scots).
*Change to 'worsen' depending on unionist/separatist tendencies.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
By constitutional convention I believe HYUFD is correct. So your overuse of the laughing emoji is better directed at yet another example of your extreme ignorance Mr Thompson 😂. If we used even a couple of emojis each time you made a silly statement it might trigger a global shortage.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
They would be largely, perhaps completely, offset by the millions of tenants who are now owner-occupiers and therefore much more likely to vote Conservatives.
And there you are making the assumption those renters will be able to get a mortgage. For example for me to be able to get a mortgage the average price in my area would have to half roughly.
I think if they managed to half house prices that the governement would have a lot of home owners voting them out damn fast.
Making being a landlord be untenable as suggested means you are going to have a lot of people with no home as they can't get a sufficient mortgage to purchase a home and now there is nowhere they can rent either
Comments
While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her.
The PM is in charge.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
30k x 4 years is 120k.
Maybe give them 30k extra at the start of a Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate#Calls_for_reform
...In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professors Hans Köchler and Robert Black said—
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
The judges of Scotland's highest court came to share this view. In a [2012] submission to the commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommended that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. They noted various ways in which the Lord Advocate's roles had caused problems for the judicial system, including the ability "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." ..
The Government has a twin-interest: pleasing commuters and passengers, but also establishing the railways on a financially sustainable basis.
Qatar have qualified as of right for next year. I don't think it's been determined yet for Canada/Mexico/US 2026 (which of course raises a similar issue of qualification where there are joint hosts - although it was allowed for Japan/South Korea 2002).
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
With a similar impact.
https://twitter.com/80_mcswan/status/1366667867048054784?s=20
In most countries there is a President or constitutional monarch who is Head of State and a PM who is Head of Government eg France, us, Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Iraq, Italy, Spain, Egypt, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc. In Germany there is a President and a Chancellor who is effectively the German PM.
Here the Queen is Head of State and the PM Head of Government appointed by and acting on behalf of the Queen.
A few countries have a President only who is both Head of State and Head of Government eg the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa and Argentina. Saudi Arabia vests the role of both Head of State and Head of Government in the King.
They then hauled in Salmond and he did not do as tehy suspected and go quietly and so they got tough but he soon showed them they were in trouble and going to lose. They suddenly then decided it needed police and despite teh original person's "concern" they gave details to Crown agent , he tried to give to police but they would not take it. Then it suddenly became 9 people , you can go and read about the whatsapp groups where they discussed the case, the messages from Murrel etc, they are all public knowledge now. Salmond reckons they wanted to drag out till police court case , police had 22 detectives on it , hundreds questioned etc. The government's QC's threatened to resign and they were lambasted by judge and case thrown out , awarded Salmond extraordinary costs on a scale never seen before.
In the police case all charges were found not guilty , defence had eye witnesses , people were proven to have not even been there when crime supposed to take place, and jury of women threw them all out.
Since then they have been fighting a rearguard action by banning production of evidence demanded by inquiry etc. They have Crown office in the team and so it goes in circles, who knows if they will survive but most people by now with any brains know they did it, just a case of whether badness, incompetence or mix of both.
So it will all remain as allegations unless the government is forced to show the evidence, Salmond has seen it as part of the police case even though it was not allowed to be used in court for some reason.
Maybe we could do a heads of Gvt version where Boris swaps with Macron?
I reckon three spots for the UK and RoI in 2030 would be fair. England, obviously, get one and then the other four can play a round robin format to determine the other two spots. And the two that don't qualify can go into regular UEFA qualifying.
The entire complexity of the train fare system is designed to get the most out of people, while allowing the people who dig to find cheap fares to find their pot of gold. Since the ones who dig are the ones most likely to complain....
The whole thing is Mrs Thatcher's fault, along with every other Prime Minister who has turned down a pay rise. Winston Churchill was on £10,000 a year, which would be more like £500,000 today.
So as I originally correctly pointed out Boris is the equivalent of the French PM, not Macron who is the French equivalent of the Queen.
UEFA are only getting three extra places in 2026 with the expansion and European qualification is pretty competitive. Looking at the 2018 tournament, NI and Ireland were two of the four teams who missed out in the play-offs (Italy and Greece were the others) and Netherlands famously didn't even make the play-offs.
Wales and Scotland missed the play-offs, although both have improved since (in Wales' case a lot - although whether it will be sustained to 2026 and beyond has to be in question).
So it would be a real surprise if England miss out in 2026/30 with expanded numbers (although the Dutch would have done so last time even with the expanded numbers so never say never). All other nations in the British Isles would have some chance but none of them are much better than a toss up to get in.
The New York Times’ orgy of British despair"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-new-york-times-orgy-of-british-despair
Anyhow I am off into the sunshine
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Personally I think even if she survives then she will not last long now as at best she is damaged goods.
Now we know the error of our ways.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1364162044044402689?s=19
Tracking covid-19 excess deaths across countries
In many parts of the world, official death tolls undercount the total number of fatalities
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Lets assume what you just said is true. How specifically could the conspirators use the women to further their own agenda and them tell the truth on the stand?
If what they said is true then Salmond committed the offences. The court found that he didn't commit the alleged offences - so either they told the truth but were disbelieved or they lied.
I can absolutely believe the telling the truth yet didn't secure a conviction scenario - it happens. Problem is that such a happenstance isn't them being part of a wider conspiracy to frame him (as in this scenario he did it).
The voters and MPs make the choice, not the ceremonial figurehead.
You could replace HMQ with an inanimate statue the hand of which must be kissed it wouldn't change the decision making process or mean the inanimate statue made the decision.
In 2030, you'd be taking places off regions (presumably UEFA mainly) making an already rather competitive qualifying tournament even more so, creating a problem for getting the votes.
It feels surmountable. But I'd not be totally surprised if the way it was avoided was saying "exceptionally, we'll simply have no host's place this year and take our chances in qualifying".
That scene from The Queen has been seared on the mind of every PM since.
Stamp Duty
Council Tax
Capital gains tax
The last is a complete no-no imagine the dementia tax x10 but a land tax that swallowed both Stamp Duty and Council Tax would solve a problem of how do you handle 30 year out of date council tax valuations.
As for landlords my biggest concern is that there is still an incentive for amateurs to borrow money and become landlords - I would prefer that that was discouraged with build to let encouraged to get pensions funds to build decent flats.
But in that case why redecorate now rather than in 2024?
https://twitter.com/sandieshoes/status/1366749159982792714?s=20
If it is house prices the culprit is
1. supply constraints, especially in key markets
2. rock bottom interest rates
Punitive taxation of BTLers attacks symptom not cause and is the sort of envious stuff I’d expect from the Labour Party.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1366703130776383489
No?
The voters merely elect MPs to the House of Commons, they do not elect the PM. Hence the monarch may appoint a new PM after a general election, as the Queen did with Blair in 1997 for example, or mid Parliament, as the monarch did when they appointed May or Boris for example.
The Queen follows the convention that she appoints the PM who can command the support of a majority of MPs in the Commons, technically she could appoint the leader of the Opposition to be PM if she wanted to even without an election, however it would be against convention and impractical as they could not get anything through Parliament.
Rather like OJ Simpson being found not guilty of murder, but being done on a civil offence.
https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/1366733132947484673
Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer, please note.
https://twitter.com/johnjohnstonmi/status/1366742442297409537
I wonder whether further confusion could be sown (sorry for pun) if she has also has a suit made for Johnson in matching fabric? I know it is a bit mean, but I can't help thinking such a garment might need slightly more material than went on the sofa!
Plus ca change.
Here, the relevant thing is perhaps that privilege is limited by contempt of court.
Interesting commentary from the Presiding Officer just after the place opened in 1999:
https://archive.parliament.scot/business/businessBulletin/bb-99/bb-06-08an.htm
That posh couple on Gogglebox have matching chairs and wallpaper. Perhaps that is the look she is going for.
*Change to 'worsen' depending on unionist/separatist tendencies.
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1366725111756251139?s=20
I think if they managed to half house prices that the governement would have a lot of home owners voting them out damn fast.
Making being a landlord be untenable as suggested means you are going to have a lot of people with no home as they can't get a sufficient mortgage to purchase a home and now there is nowhere they can rent either