As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.
As someone who understands how the gig economy works -I actively avoid going anywhere near it.
If a local takeaway does its own delivery I will use that otherwise I will get in the car and collect.
Prices are usually cheaper as well
There is something a bit parasitical and sinister with uber eats deliveroo just eats etc. They've very cleverly used SEO to grab search queries for local business, which they then have to pay commission for for purchases that they think are part of the fast food place's business. They have become so ubiquitous that an app like just eat now has replaced a traditional menu for many younger people.
That 15%-20% off the top is enormous, but the owners know that not signing up will result in much less business.
I know it’s a complicated issue, but if the self-employed are to be treated as employees, then their employers need to be paying national insurance.
Actually I'd say the opposite. This is part of the problem.
We tax externalities that we try to reduce, like pollution and alcohol etc - but then we tax employment which perversely encourages businesses not to employ people. Or to lie about how much they pay people. The tax system means it is in both an employee and employers interests for someone to eg have a contract saying they're paid £300 per week, while the employer actually gives them £400, cutting out tax and NI for both employee and employer.
As a nation we have piled burden on top of burden on top of tax for honest employers: Employers NI, Pensions, SSP, Holiday Pay etc - that dodgy employers in the same industry manage to escape from all of. Allowing them to undercut the honest employers.
We should not be taxing employment like its an externality. Quite the opposite.
Okay, abolish the taxes on business, but obviously the shortfall needs to be made up somewhere. What matters is that there should be a level playing field.
Yes that's my point too. How about as a left-field suggestion having a much higher minimum wage for anyone self-employed?
If the national minimum wage is say £10 per hour, then honest employers need to accrue for Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions and more - bringing it to more like £15 per hour once you accrue for all other costs.
So how about saying that self-employment can continue, but if you are hiring someone self-employed then you need to pay a £15 per hour minimum wage. The self-employed person can then pay their own taxes, holidays, pensions and set money aside for when sick from that.
Level playing field.
I guess it's a bit like social care. I don't think any politician would address this issue simply because no one is complaining about it.
It might be the right thing to do, but why should the politicians (of any colour) get involved? All the media will do is focus on the downsides (employees are second class citizens, etc. etc.).
Far easier to leave things as they are and let nature take its course.
Why would employees be second class citizens?
Employees get Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions etc - if we were to wrap up those into a higher minimum wage for the self-employed then it would eliminate the perversion of encouraging employers to dodge costs by making their employees "self-employed". Either way there'd be a level playing field.
It would also mean that for the genuinely self-employed like lawyers, consultants etc they'd be unaffected by these reforms, since they're already on more than minimum wage you'd hope.
As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.
As someone who understands how the gig economy works -I actively avoid going anywhere near it.
If a local takeaway does its own delivery I will use that otherwise I will get in the car and collect.
Prices are usually cheaper as well
There is something a bit parasitical and sinister with uber eats deliveroo just eats etc. They've very cleverly used SEO to grab search queries for local business, which they then have to pay commission for for purchases that they think are part of the fast food place's business. They have become so ubiquitous that an app like just eat now has replaced a traditional menu for many younger people.
That 15%-20% off the top is enormous, but the owners know that not signing up will result in much less business.
The really naughty thing for the drivers / riders is the gamification. If you go to work at Sports Direct warehouse on ZHC, you are told upfront its £x / hr. Its going to come clear pretty quickly what a regular week is in terms of hours they need you and thus you can have some idea about your likely wage. As a student, I did this kind of work in the holidays and it was fine. Yes there is some uncertainty over just how many hours, but I found everything dropped into a fairly standard sort of pattern. If it was total unpredictable chaos the warehouses would never efficiently function, and I found if you were reliable and willing to work, the shift managers where I worked were decent with ensuring people go a fair go around.
With these delivery apps, every delivery is totally different money and then they had even further complexity by having daily "quests". It is totally impossible to get any sort of handle on what a shift will pay. You could say its not that different to a taxi driver doesn't know what rides he will get, but fees are normally mandated on a per mile basis and yes Uber have a "surge" pricing model, but the delivery apps seem particularly opaque about how the compensation for a drop is worked out, combined with ever changing multipliers and quests.
As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.
As someone who understands how the gig economy works -I actively avoid going anywhere near it.
If a local takeaway does its own delivery I will use that otherwise I will get in the car and collect.
Prices are usually cheaper as well
There is something a bit parasitical and sinister with uber eats deliveroo just eats etc. They've very cleverly used SEO to grab search queries for local business, which they then have to pay commission for for purchases that they think are part of the fast food place's business. They have become so ubiquitous that an app like just eat now has replaced a traditional menu for many younger people.
That 15%-20% off the top is enormous, but the owners know that not signing up will result in much less business.
The really naughty thing for the drivers / riders is the gamification. If you go to work at Sports Direct warehouse on ZHC, you are told upfront its £x / hr. Its going to come clear pretty quickly what a regular week is in terms of hours they need you and thus you can have some idea about your likely wage. As a student, I did this kind of work in the holidays and it was fine. Yes there is some uncertainty over just how many hours, but I found everything dropped into a fairly standard sort of pattern. If it was total unpredictable chaos the warehouses would never efficiently function, and I found if you were reliable and willing to work, the shift managers where I worked were decent with ensuring people go a fair go around.
With these delivery apps, every delivery is totally different money and then they had even further complexity by having daily "quests". It is totally impossible to get any sort of handle on what a shift will pay. You could say its not that different to a taxi driver doesn't know what rides he will get, but fees are normally mandated on a per mile basis and yes Uber have a "surge" pricing model, but the delivery apps seem particularly opaque about how the compensation for a drop is worked out, combined with ever changing multipliers and quests.
It's not even as if it is some multi layer marketing. The drivers cant whip up more business or expand the customer base so need to be incentivised.
One of those things that works for the businesses because capital costs are sunk and the marginal cost of a pizza is quite small when on top of an existing business. Same for the drivers. The car is paid for, the cost is the fuel and the value of the labour by the driver.
Neither would work if you had to include the vehicle depreciation in the cost or the overheads of running a pizza business.
Thank-you for the piece. I think that's me running at one suggestion per month (cough).
On the miscarriage of justice, this jumped out at me:
Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.
Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.
Two aspects - the force majeure to make innocent people admit crimes - a step in the direction of the American out-of-court system and some European systems, which is coming more into our own.
And the corrupt behaviour by the GMP.
And - I think - it is a matter of law that compensation for wrongful imprisonment is not an entitlement; it will have to be a High Court action if he is to get anything.
It is as serious as the Post Office scandal, though his life has been destroyed more thoroughly.
That the 'indeterminate sentence' matter is still going on more than 10 years after they were known to be indefensible suggests that these issues will not be sorted quickly.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
I seem to be noticing the spring chill here in east London this afternoon. Those enjoying dining with their Italian cousin, Al Fresco, would need, unless sheltered, the winter coat or some good outdoor heating.
More on-topic, East Ham High Street is now replete with bicycle and motor-bike deliverers outside our McDonalds, KFC and German Doner Kebab (don't ask, really, don't ask).
To "have" to work, even when you are sick, because you need every penny to pay your rent and survive and to be told if you take a day's leave or sick, not only will you not be paid, you'll also be fired is, I fear, a reality for too many.
As @DavidL suggests, the seemingly endless flow of cheap labour in the past 15-20 years has debased employment and industry, not just because wages have been suppressed but companies have eschewed the use of automaton because, to be blunt, it's easier to recruit another pair of hands.
If changes to immigration mean the employment pool has tightened, that will have consequences through the economy, Tightening the labour market may help the lowest-paid but the consequence will be inflation through the whole economy as we saw in the late 1980s when labour shortages led to wage-led inflation.
Cheap labour means productivity and business processes stagnate which impacts across the economy. The "future" in the 1960s and 1970s was meant to be less work and more leisure but the converse seems to be true. The problem is the economy is not positioned to support large numbers of economically inactive people which is why the retirement age keeps going up because the country cannot afford to have so many people "retired" (though you can imagine spending their pension helps the UK economy).
This is all confused and incoherent, isn't it? It's a huge area (like housing) which is multi-layered and connects with other parts of the economy, society and politics.
A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.
Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.
There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.
Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.
Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.
Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.
Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.
Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.
Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.
A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).
I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.
If so, that's incredibly serious.
Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.
EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.
The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
Oooft.
This sounds pretty bad.
As in, if correct those involved are still alive they should be facing criminal charges and long prison sentences, while Malkinson is clearly entitled to substantial compensation.
I get the desire for financial recompense, but as my contracts say “financial compensation may not be a sufficient remedy”.
He lost 18 years - a large proportion of his productive adult life - and (presumably) the chance to have a normal family life.
What’s even worse is he was kept in prison for an extra 20 years because he refused to admit to the crime. That’s a separate issue but equally troubling
A man who spent 17 years in prison for rape and maintained his innocence is a step closer to clearing his name after a fresh DNA breakthrough in his case.
Andrew Malkinson was convicted of raping a 33-year-old mother left for dead on a Manchester roadside in the middle of the night in July 2003.
There was never any forensic evidence against him and his conviction depended on an identity parade and testimony from witnesses whose criminal pasts were hidden from the court.
Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.
Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.
Despite this, GMP continue to spend public money fighting Malkinson’s lawyers in the courts to prevent more information being revealed about the witnesses and their interaction with police. The couple came forward to say they were witnesses shortly after police put out a call to their sources, raising the possibility that they were police informants.
Sounds very strange. What I'd be interested to know is, what took the police to Malkinson in the first place that resulted in them putting him an ID parade?
Malkinson, who worked as a security guard at the Ellesmere Shopping Centre, in Walkden, had been living in a flat close to where the woman was attacked.
Four weeks prior to the attack, he was stopped by police officers in Little Hulton while riding pillion on an off-road motorbike.
Both Malkinson and the driver had their details taken.
A month later, when an E-fit of the man who committed the rape and his description was circulated among police, the officers said they were reminded of Malkinson.
Okay, so not friends/relatives calling into Crimewatch or somethng. And presumably the witnesses came forward and picked him out in a parade (how many?).
I suppose it could have been that they picked him out by chance. But presumably the suggestion is that this bloke was properly fitted up. That is, the police went to their informants and told them who to pick.
If so, that's incredibly serious.
Otherwise, I'm not sure their records or who they are is especially relevant.
EDIT: though, that really ought to be for the judge to decide, so if the police didn't disclose it, then that is bad in its own right.
The victim had told the court she was “more than 100 per cent certain” that he was her attacker after she picked him out of an identity parade. No other suspects were put forward in the parade although he did not match her description of her assailant.
The victim said the man who raped her was 5ft 8in at most but Malkinson is 5ft 11in. She said she left a “deep scratch” on her attacker’s cheek but Malkinson was not seen with one. She also said he had a local Bolton accent “with a tinge of something else” but Malkinson grew up in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, and had just arrived in the area.
So he was identified by her and witnesses?
It's a funny sort of logic, isn't it, that would put you on an identification parade because you resemble the description given by a witness. And then because they are able to pick you out of a random group of people, take that fact as conclusive of guilt.
The point being he didn’t resemble that description.
All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.
When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation. And the PM polls well there too. I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
Housing.
New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.
Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.
NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.
The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.
The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
Oh absolutely.
And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.
Let the free market rip.
And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.
The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.
The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.
Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value. Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.
Absolutely 100% correct.
But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.
If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.
But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?
Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen. Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.
If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.
If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?
Far too simplistic.
Why not? If you want an area protected it should be owned by something like the National Trust instead who won't build on it.
So why doesn't Kinder Scout get bought by the National Trust or something like that in order to protect it? Oh wait, its already owned by the National Trust.
National Parks and the National Trust are one thing, but privately owned land - that should be on the owner. Its their possession to do with as they please, within the law.
I think the National Trust ownership is a red herring there. If you like consider Foolow Farm instead, at the head of Edale Valley. If we want protection it should properly be through a political process rather than the power of rich charities.
The point is that the wider community (from next door to the whole country) has a reasonable stake in regulating development, and it is a matter of balance how we implement that.
One example of what happens if you allow a free for all are the 1950s style boiler plate Council Estates that are attached willy-nilly to many of the villages in the Peak District. It is not an improvement.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
Incidentally, the Labour Party tends to do really badly when it is an economically illiterate moral crusade - see what happened under Foot or Corbyn. It is somewhat ironic that Harold Wilson, of all people, originated that quote, since he was, with Blair, the most pragmatic Labour leader since the War, and, again with Blair, the most electorally successful. Obsessing over the rights of small minorities who may not even really want them, and anyway probably don't vote, or vote Labour anyway, won't get Starmer into Downing Street. Devising policies that appeal to aspirational 30- or 40-somethings in the English small towns will.
And those people are far more likely to use Uber or Deliveroo than work for them.
What does it say, and how many former Labour leaders would turn in the graves, when today’s Labour Party seems unwilling to call out exploitative employment practices lest it upset their urban middle class voters?
Fake news; I know you're partisan, but this is just lazy commentary. The last two Labour manifestos have contained detailed proposals to tackle exploitative employment practices around the gig economy, zero-hours contracts and self-employment. Labour lost those elections, so none have been implemented.
The Conservatives (who have been in power), under May, published the (Matthew)Taylor report into the gig economy in 2017. As far as I am aware, neither that government nor its successor has implemented the recommendations. Instead, it has been left to the courts (e.g. Uber) to make progress.
I agree with much of David's header, and indeed most of it is already part of Labour policy. It's strange blaming Labour for lack of progress on this though, isn't it? Who's been in power during the rise of the gig economy over the last 10 years?
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
If there was really a culture war and the left wing was taking over our institutions, you wonder why the Government of 10 years - the Tory one? - has done nothing about it.
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Corbyn and co suggested all sorts of things. Their goal was a socialist state.
The whole idea of 'exploited gig economy workers' is a bit daft. All of them will have chosen to seek out these jobs. All of them can quit.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
Well. After 11 years of Tory led government and 4 years of my Council, I note their slogan. "It's time for a change. Vote Conservative."
All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.
When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation. And the PM polls well there too. I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
Housing.
New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.
Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.
NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.
The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.
The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
Oh absolutely.
And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.
Let the free market rip.
And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.
The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.
The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.
Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value. Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.
Absolutely 100% correct.
But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.
If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.
But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?
Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen. Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.
If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.
If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?
Far too simplistic.
Why not? If you want an area protected it should be owned by something like the National Trust instead who won't build on it.
So why doesn't Kinder Scout get bought by the National Trust or something like that in order to protect it? Oh wait, its already owned by the National Trust.
National Parks and the National Trust are one thing, but privately owned land - that should be on the owner. Its their possession to do with as they please, within the law.
I think the National Trust ownership is a red herring there. If you like consider Foolow Farm instead, at the head of Edale Valley. If we want protection it should properly be through a political process rather than the power of rich charities.
The point is that the wider community (from next door to the whole country) has a reasonable stake in regulating development, and it is a matter of balance how we implement that.
One example of what happens if you allow a free for all are the 1950s style boiler plate Council Estates that are attached willy-nilly to many of the villages in the Peak District. It is not an improvement.
The question is balance in the planning system.
I completely disagree. I don't think the wider community has any stake in regulating development.
If developments aren't wanted then nobody will pay for them. A free for all means people have to compete on price and quality, instead of simply being "these are the scraps of what's permitted to be built - take it because that's all that's available."
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Corbyn and co suggested all sorts of things. Their goal was a socialist state.
The whole idea of 'exploited gig economy workers' is a bit daft. All of them will have chosen to seek out these jobs. All of them can quit.
I really don't think you have a clue about how many people really struggle to earn a crust to pay their rent, bills and living costs. The idea that most of these people have much of a 'choice' and can just 'quit' is ludicrous.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
It's just part of the contradictions that bedevil the Labour party at the moment because its activist base and target voters are so far apart, isn't it? You have all these new "tech" companies that are set up with business models that explicitly rely on trampling all over a century's (or more) worth of hard-won employment rights - Uber are the most obvious culprits, but there are others almost as bad. These should be public enemy #1 for the Labour party, only huge chunks of the new activist base - young, educated metro types with good salaries but limited free time who often don't own cars - think Uber, and Deliveroo, and Amazon etc are the best thing ever.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Alternatively eliminate the distinction between them all for tax purposes and tax everyone the same.
Its perverse that people say the self-employed shouldn't pay NIC because they don't get holiday pay etc - holiday pay is paid by the employer, along with Employer NICs, not the state anyway.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
Probably a drop in the ocean - but "every little helps":
Britain said on Sunday it was sending more than 600 medical devices including oxygen concentrators and ventilators to India to help the country as it struggles to cope with a surge in coronavirus cases.
The equipment comes from Britain's surplus stock and the first shipment was due to arrive in New Delhi early on Tuesday, the British foreign ministry said.
"We stand side by side with India as a friend and partner during what is a deeply concerning time in the fight against COVID-19," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Combining IC and NI should have happened years ago. George Osborne had the opportunity to do so and kicked it into the long grass.
As someone who uses the gig economy a fair bit I do have to admit the more I read about the guiltier I feel.
As someone who understands how the gig economy works -I actively avoid going anywhere near it.
If a local takeaway does its own delivery I will use that otherwise I will get in the car and collect.
Prices are usually cheaper as well
There is something a bit parasitical and sinister with uber eats deliveroo just eats etc. They've very cleverly used SEO to grab search queries for local business, which they then have to pay commission for for purchases that they think are part of the fast food place's business. They have become so ubiquitous that an app like just eat now has replaced a traditional menu for many younger people.
That 15%-20% off the top is enormous, but the owners know that not signing up will result in much less business.
I'd rather pay JustEat's markup than deal with crappy website or phone service.
Although I usually browse and pay through JustEat and then go collect myself in person. As far as I'm concerned I treat them like a department store for food.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Combining IC and NI should have happened years ago. George Osborne had the opportunity to do so and kicked it into the long grass.
Merging the various benefits into Universal Credit was a bigger reform though to be fair and that was done.
Merging Income Tax and NI alone wouldn't do that much. Merging Income Tax, NI and UC altogether would be a gamechanger.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
You think NI is a hypothecated tax?
Although I agree that it's best to assume that by the time you get there there won't be any money left.
I thought that quote was from Tony Crosland. Ah well.
Trouble for Labour is that the moral crusade doesn't appear to have worked too well in winning elections. Although weirdly one might argue that Labour's most successful election winner took the moral crusade very seriously indeed.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
You think NI is a hypothecated tax?
I know it isn't, but I think it should be.
That's why it's an irrelevance. Just roll it up into income tax and be done with it, or turn it into a proper insurance fund.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
Hugely influential on subsequent events, as this backlash and the resulting MPs rebellion threatening the whole budget was one of the key reasons along with the Copeland result that led May to change her mind on calling an election.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Combining IC and NI should have happened years ago. George Osborne had the opportunity to do so and kicked it into the long grass.
Merging the various benefits into Universal Credit was a bigger reform though to be fair and that was done.
Merging Income Tax and NI alone wouldn't do that much. Merging Income Tax, NI and UC altogether would be a gamechanger.
Merging income tax and NI would mean there's no lower rate for self-employed people or zero rate for those above "retirement age".
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
Yeah, but they didn't have Just Eat when they were kids, so swings and roundabouts.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Trouble with merging tax and NI is that pensioners don't pay NI and so they'd likely be paying more. I also think it best to maintain some kind of contributory system.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Trouble with merging tax and NI is that pensioners don't pay NI and so they'd likely be paying more. I also think it best to maintain some kind of contributory system.
Why's that a problem? If elderly people are earning a fortune why shouldn't they pay their fair share in tax? If "self employed" people are earning a fortune why shouldn't they pay their fair share in tax?
If someone in poverty can get an extra shift why should they be taxed 90% on their marginal income?
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
Yep. And come the GE, Johnson & the Cons won't be able to present themselves as the change. That card can be played only once and they've played it.
I hope this is not portrayed as 'helping a failed developing country'.
They have been sending vaccines abroad and not playing games about it.
Numbers seem low - should be 5000 not 500, bearing in mind this country has about 30k available now, cases are very low and we can have more made before winter.
Trouble with merging tax and NI is that pensioners don't pay NI and so they'd likely be paying more.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
Let's face it they'd kick off about it. Being realistic that's why it would be hard to do.
I also don't like the way in which earned income is effectively taxed at a higher rate than unearned income as you don't pay NI on the latter. I'm just not sure what the efficiency savings would be given you'd still need to administer a contributory system for those wanting to claim benefits.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
If there was really a culture war and the left wing was taking over our institutions, you wonder why the Government of 10 years - the Tory one? - has done nothing about it.
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
The Government has started doing something about it, but only in the last 2-3 years.
Up until 2014-15 Conservatives largely ignored left-wing infiltration of educational and cultural institutions because its energies were focused elsewhere, largely in economic and foreign policy.
Not sure how reliable it is - the late Bob Wooffinden was never one to let the facts get in the way of his views - but at the same time, any one of the procedural flaws outlined should have been more than sufficient to strike down the charges.
Trouble with merging tax and NI is that pensioners don't pay NI and so they'd likely be paying more.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
Let's face it they'd kick off about it. Being realistic that's why it would be hard to do.
I also don't like the way in which earned income is effectively taxed at a higher rate than unearned income as you don't pay NI on the latter. I'm just not sure what the efficiency savings would be given you'd still need to administer a contributory system for those wanting to claim benefits.
What are they gonna do, vote for the woke Britain-haters in the Labour Party?
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
You'll get a pension. If you think average life expectancy minus 10 years, then it should always be sustainable.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
You'll get a pension. If you think average life expectancy minus 10 years, then it should always be sustainable.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
That relies on there being enough young people to be paying NI when I'm 70. I can't count on that whatsoever.
I guess we could raze the magic money forest to the ground.
Personally I would increase the basic rate of tax by 2p and reduce NI by 1p and then maybe do the same again in a couple of years (even that might have pensioners outraged). I'd force people over retirement age to keep paying NI if they are in employment. The moves on corporation tax look right to me.
It's ludicrous that council tax has not been reformed in three decades. I'd look at trying an LVT but can't claim expertise on it.
But don't worry she'll force the English to pay all Scottish pensions.
Here’s a list of “recently” independent countries that prove Scotland will be better off economically that’s been quoted by a nat on Twitter.. Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Estonia Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Moldova Russia Tajikistan
Interesting ole list and a bit of a theme there (despite many of those not really being recent)
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
And, even if it had been, it wouldn't have got traction because with his rhetoric, tone and style - and the people he persisted in associating himself with, and the emphasis he gave on his favoured causes - people didn't believe Corbyn was on their side or had this country's best interests at heart.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
If there was really a culture war and the left wing was taking over our institutions, you wonder why the Government of 10 years - the Tory one? - has done nothing about it.
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
The Government has started doing something about it, but only in the last 2-3 years.
Up until 2014-15 Conservatives largely ignored left-wing infiltration of educational and cultural institutions because its energies were focused elsewhere, largely in economic and foreign policy.
Reds under the bed! You are the ghost of Joe McCarthy and I claim my £5.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
You'll get a pension. If you think average life expectancy minus 10 years, then it should always be sustainable.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
That relies on there being enough young people to be paying NI when I'm 70. I can't count on that whatsoever.
I guess we could raze the magic money forest to the ground.
I don't think that's the issue - the Government of the day would just have to re-jig the tax system to make sure it works. The bigger problem is trying to figure out how much you need in a private pension to supplement the pitiful State amount and support the lifestyle you'll want in retirement.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
You'll get a pension. If you think average life expectancy minus 10 years, then it should always be sustainable.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
That relies on there being enough young people to be paying NI when I'm 70. I can't count on that whatsoever.
I guess we could raze the magic money forest to the ground.
It'll be ok. We might all be working longer, so the tax base is broader, or the whole nature of work will have changed with automation and AI on top.
I'd strongly recommend saving into a private pension. It's a tax efficient way of saving for all sorts of things.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
In the manifesto and featured in policy speeches. How to prevent employers exploiting workers via confected self-employment.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
Your NI pays for today's pensioners, not your own.
Exactly. Nobody will be there to pay for mine, and why should I pay for the pensions of the richest generation we've ever had?
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
You'll get a pension. If you think average life expectancy minus 10 years, then it should always be sustainable.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
That relies on there being enough young people to be paying NI when I'm 70. I can't count on that whatsoever.
I guess we could raze the magic money forest to the ground.
It'll be ok. We might all be working longer, so the tax base is broader, or the whole nature of work will have changed with automation and AI on top.
I'd strongly recommend saving into a private pension. It's a tax efficient way of saving for all sorts of things.
The problem is plenty aren't/Can't afford to. Specifically those on ZHC who mostly can barely make the rent as it is.
As a 29 year old, National Insurance is a complete irrelevance considering the state pension is going to be nothing by the time I reach the 100+ retirement age or whatever it will be, and I'll probably be dead by the time in any case.
You think NI is a hypothecated tax?
I know it isn't, but I think it should be.
That's why it's an irrelevance. Just roll it up into income tax and be done with it, or turn it into a proper insurance fund.
One reason why this won't happen is that having a tax called Income tax with a headline rate of 20% is politically useful, and loads better for presentation purposes than the headline rate being 31% or thereabouts. Yes, it's crazy but politicians think it works and they are right.
The other thing it conceals is that the gap between the marginal rate paid by Joe Public - 31% is not so different from the marginal rate paid by Croesus Richman - 41%, or the 46% paid by his even richer brother (IIRC NI drops out at a certain level except a 1% bit which goes on to infinity)
One area that needs sorting out is the taxation of labour.
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
Remember a few years ago when Hammond had a policy in the budget to ensure self employed paid a bit more....the media had total meltdown....I think the max extra to be paid was £500-600....the fact so many of these media types get paid via service companies, or have side gigs doing corporate stuff that gets paid via them, totally irrelevant.
And of course he folded.
The tax and benefit system is so complex, and so weighted in favour of "service company" types that dominate the media, that the only way I can see it ever being fixed is to tear it all up and start again.
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
Combining IC and NI should have happened years ago. George Osborne had the opportunity to do so and kicked it into the long grass.
Merging the various benefits into Universal Credit was a bigger reform though to be fair and that was done.
Merging Income Tax and NI alone wouldn't do that much. Merging Income Tax, NI and UC altogether would be a gamechanger.
Merging income tax and NI would mean there's no lower rate for self-employed people or zero rate for those above "retirement age".
I get that, but doing that alone means there's purely losers, no winners (besides making things equal). The losers will squeal and squeal, the rest who see no meaningful change won't appreciate it.
By doing the three simultaneously means you can put the emphasis on the Universal Basic Income and the benefits to the winners and drown out the noise of the privileged squealers losing their cushy tax advantages as part of a rounded package.
All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.
When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation. And the PM polls well there too. I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
Housing.
New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.
Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.
NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.
The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.
The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
Oh absolutely.
And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.
Let the free market rip.
And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.
The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.
The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.
Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value. Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.
Absolutely 100% correct.
But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.
If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.
But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?
Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen. Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.
If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.
If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?
Far too simplistic.
Why not? If you want an area protected it should be owned by something like the National Trust instead who won't build on it.
So why doesn't Kinder Scout get bought by the National Trust or something like that in order to protect it? Oh wait, its already owned by the National Trust.
National Parks and the National Trust are one thing, but privately owned land - that should be on the owner. Its their possession to do with as they please, within the law.
I think the National Trust ownership is a red herring there. If you like consider Foolow Farm instead, at the head of Edale Valley. If we want protection it should properly be through a political process rather than the power of rich charities.
The point is that the wider community (from next door to the whole country) has a reasonable stake in regulating development, and it is a matter of balance how we implement that.
One example of what happens if you allow a free for all are the 1950s style boiler plate Council Estates that are attached willy-nilly to many of the villages in the Peak District. It is not an improvement.
The question is balance in the planning system.
I completely disagree. I don't think the wider community has any stake in regulating development.
If developments aren't wanted then nobody will pay for them. A free for all means people have to compete on price and quality, instead of simply being "these are the scraps of what's permitted to be built - take it because that's all that's available."
To me that is rather bizarre - essentially pretending that there are not links between neighbours, when such links do exist.
So should any of the following exist, to mention a few instances? All of these impose limitations on what private owners can do with their land, and all of them are set up by the whole community democratically.
Public footpaths. River pollution regulations. Smokeless zones. Limitations to releasing new species. eg Signal Crayfish into streams where they are not present. National Nature Reserves (NNR) Local Nature Reserves (LNR) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Special Protection Areas (SPA) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Heritage Coasts National Parks Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) World Heritage Sites.
To choose a sharp case, if I own the Avebury Circle, should I be able to demolish it and build a tennis court?
Where do you draw the lines? And based around which values / principles?
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
If there was really a culture war and the left wing was taking over our institutions, you wonder why the Government of 10 years - the Tory one? - has done nothing about it.
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
The Government has started doing something about it, but only in the last 2-3 years.
Up until 2014-15 Conservatives largely ignored left-wing infiltration of educational and cultural institutions because its energies were focused elsewhere, largely in economic and foreign policy.
Reds under the bed! You are the ghost of Joe McCarthy and I claim my £5.
God help us!
Your failure to recognise the problem (and you are not alone with many of your left-wing fellow travellers here) is just a sign of how all pervasive and dominant the current orthodoxy has become that makes absolutely everything about race, gender, sexuality and intersectionality thereof. It is setting group against group in a victim and oppresser hierarchy, coupled with as assumption that we all carry and must pay for historical guilt, and is fundamentally illiberal in the way it deals with real people.
It is only a matter of time before this comes crashing down through the weight of its own contradictions but it has advanced so far through our society it now needs national political opposition to be rolled back. In the meantime, the wailing will be off the scale, together with cries of "culture war", because this toxic ideology dares to be challenged.
All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.
When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation. And the PM polls well there too. I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
Housing.
New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.
Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.
NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.
The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.
The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
Oh absolutely.
And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.
Let the free market rip.
And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.
The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.
The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.
Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value. Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.
Absolutely 100% correct.
But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.
If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.
But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?
Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen. Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.
If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.
If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?
Far too simplistic.
Why not? If you want an area protected it should be owned by something like the National Trust instead who won't build on it.
So why doesn't Kinder Scout get bought by the National Trust or something like that in order to protect it? Oh wait, its already owned by the National Trust.
National Parks and the National Trust are one thing, but privately owned land - that should be on the owner. Its their possession to do with as they please, within the law.
I think the National Trust ownership is a red herring there. If you like consider Foolow Farm instead, at the head of Edale Valley. If we want protection it should properly be through a political process rather than the power of rich charities.
The point is that the wider community (from next door to the whole country) has a reasonable stake in regulating development, and it is a matter of balance how we implement that.
One example of what happens if you allow a free for all are the 1950s style boiler plate Council Estates that are attached willy-nilly to many of the villages in the Peak District. It is not an improvement.
The question is balance in the planning system.
I completely disagree. I don't think the wider community has any stake in regulating development.
If developments aren't wanted then nobody will pay for them. A free for all means people have to compete on price and quality, instead of simply being "these are the scraps of what's permitted to be built - take it because that's all that's available."
To me that is rather bizarre - essentially pretending that there are not links between neighbours, when such links do exist.
So should any of the following exist, to mention a few instances? All of these impose limitations on what private owners can do with their land, and all of them are set up by the whole community democratically.
Public footpaths. River pollution regulations. Smokeless zones. Limitations to releasing new species. eg Signal Crayfish into streams where they are not present. National Nature Reserves (NNR) Local Nature Reserves (LNR) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Special Protection Areas (SPA) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Heritage Coasts National Parks Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) World Heritage Sites.
To choose a sharp case, if I own the Avebury Circle, should I be able to demolish it and build a tennis court?
Where do you draw the lines? And based around which values / principles?
Specifically drawn and limited reserves should be able to exist - as well as listed buildings.
But if a premise is not listed, or land is not reserved, then the owner of the land should be able to do whatever the want with it within the law.
Building standards etc should exist providing limitations. But then so long as you're within preset limitations then it should be possible to simply start construction whenever you want.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
In the manifesto and featured in policy speeches. How to prevent employers exploiting workers via confected self-employment.
There was a million things in the manifesto, and this one was buried way down. There's no point pretending that it featured particularly prominently in the campaigns, because it didn't. And the reason is - in my view - that it simply wasn't something the activist base could get excited about (citation: actual conversations I had at the time with very excited Corbynista activist colleagues, who simply refused to believe this could possibly be a priority for a Labour Government).
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
"Reactionary reductives"
He's at it again, folks.
It is a good phrase, isn't it? Conjures up exactly what it's meant to, which is not always easy to do. But "at it again" is a tad unfair. I use it sparingly. First appearance for several weeks. Don't want it going "off".
And you'll be over the moon (I'd imagine) to discover that you aren't one! The reactionary bit, yes, oh yes indeedy, but not reductive. You are not as a rule overly reductive.
Look at the way her eyes flick to the side right at the start. Quite a ‘tell’. Knows she’s talking bollox
I suddenly find her voice very irritating. Whereas I used to quite like her accent.
It must be due to her ubiquity on TV. God knows how the Scots tolerate it (and still like her?!). ANY politician becomes irritating after that much exposure
Not sure how reliable it is - the late Bob Wooffinden was never one to let the facts get in the way of his views - but at the same time, any one of the procedural flaws outlined should have been more than sufficient to strike down the charges.
So she identified him, but only one of the two witnesses did.
Reading all that, I'm not convinced that she was raped.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
"Reactionary reductives"
He's at it again, folks.
It is a good phrase, isn't it? Conjures up exactly what it's meant to, which is not always easy to do. But "at it again" is a tad unfair. I use it sparingly. First appearance for several weeks. Don't want it going "off".
And you'll be over the moon (I'd imagine) to discover that you aren't one! The reactionary bit, yes, oh yes indeedy, but not reductive. You are not as a rule overly reductive.
Nonsense. You've rolled it out three times on me this week, twice in the 24 hours.
I've come to the conclusion you're a dogmatist. You often initiate a discussion and then, after three or four exchanges (which sometimes even go somewhere with a constructive debate) you get to a place you're uncomfortable with and then just fall back on insults like "reactionary".
This makes it far easier for you to dismiss views you'd rather not engage with, and is the sign of a weak and insecure mind that harbours a secret doubt.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Look at the way her eyes flick to the side right at the start. Quite a ‘tell’. Knows she’s talking bollox
I suddenly find her voice very irritating. Whereas I used to quite like her accent.
It must be due to her ubiquity on TV. God knows how the Scots tolerate it (and still like her?!). ANY politician becomes irritating after that much exposure
She also nods and throws her head about all the time during interviews.
Once you notice that it's almost impossible to watch her again without counting the bounces and wobbles.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
In the manifesto and featured in policy speeches. How to prevent employers exploiting workers via confected self-employment.
There was a million things in the manifesto, and this one was buried way down. There's no point pretending that it featured particularly prominently in the campaigns, because it didn't. And the reason is - in my view - that it simply wasn't something the activist base could get excited about (citation: actual conversations I had at the time with very excited Corbynista activist colleagues, who simply refused to believe this could possibly be a priority for a Labour Government).
Judging from some comments on PB, very few Conservatives seem to have been aware that, before Covid was a thing, Boris was running as a neo-Corbynite.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate deal with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantaged.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Indeed, one could argue the fact we have these issues after more than a decade of Conservative-led Government suggest that Party is entirely devoid of any ideas in that area.
If there was really a culture war and the left wing was taking over our institutions, you wonder why the Government of 10 years - the Tory one? - has done nothing about it.
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
The Government has started doing something about it, but only in the last 2-3 years.
Up until 2014-15 Conservatives largely ignored left-wing infiltration of educational and cultural institutions because its energies were focused elsewhere, largely in economic and foreign policy.
Reds under the bed! You are the ghost of Joe McCarthy and I claim my £5.
God help us!
Your failure to recognise the problem (and you are not alone with many of your left-wing fellow travellers here) is just a sign of how all pervasive and dominant the current orthodoxy has become that makes absolutely everything about race, gender, sexuality and intersectionality thereof. It is setting group against group in a victim and oppresser hierarchy, coupled with as assumption that we all carry and must pay for historical guilt, and is fundamentally illiberal in the way it deals with real people.
It is only a matter of time before this comes crashing down through the weight of its own contradictions but it has advanced so far through our society it now needs national political opposition to be rolled back. In the meantime, the wailing will be off the scale, together with cries of "culture war", because this toxic ideology dares to be challenged.
Does being pretty much in the centre make me a raging pinko?
Historical issues with Rotherham/Rochdale taxi drivers is a concession I will grant you, and the force of the law is being brought to bear on that issue across the country. Will you concede to me institutional racism in the police which is also now being dealt with by the force of the law? (Recent prosecution for a serving officer being part of a banned racist group, as I recall).
Nonetheless, most of your concerns are straight out of the Fox News playbook.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
As the usual bunch of PB tory partisans and reactionary reductives - who I love but, gosh, it can be trying - witter on in their distinctive way about Labour these days being all about 'wokery' and giving zero fucks about bread & butter issues such as exploited gig economy workers, it should be noted that the party under Corbyn had this exact thing front and centre, and put forward ideas which overlap and complement this header of David's quite nicely.
Yeah, no they didn't. It was buried way down in the manifesto, miles below all the nonsense about nationalising utility companies. They went big on ZHCs, but that's a completely different issue to the gig economy, and pretty much a non-issue anyway since the Coalition Government brought in legislation that effectively solved most of the problems.
In the manifesto and featured in policy speeches. How to prevent employers exploiting workers via confected self-employment.
There was a million things in the manifesto, and this one was buried way down. There's no point pretending that it featured particularly prominently in the campaigns, because it didn't. And the reason is - in my view - that it simply wasn't something the activist base could get excited about (citation: actual conversations I had at the time with very excited Corbynista activist colleagues, who simply refused to believe this could possibly be a priority for a Labour Government).
The Labour offering in the last 2 general elections was massively weighted towards bread & butter economic issues (and included this one). The notion that the modern Labour party prioritizes 'wokers over workers' is tosh. It's a Tory attack mantra and nothing else.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
Maybe she lives in your post-planning permission fantasy world and her next door neighbour built a nuclear power plant on their land and thus her home is now worthless?
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
I assumed that she was on an interest-only mortgage and had self-certified the income originally, so even if house price appreciation meant that it was now 75% LTV or whatever, she still can't get remortgage as she doesn't have sufficient income for the borrowing required.
The SC in that case simply applied the legislation; I think their judgment was plainly correct. That is why we need to change the legislative framework
That does sound correct, even if the legislation itself can sometimes be unpleasant. Relying upon judges to be allies for things is problematic in many ways.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
I have an inkling that the reason none of these people can change mortgage company is because their loans were interest only so their equity is the same (or less) than it was 15 years ago.
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
I would agree with you in most circumstances but I'm not sure the Treasury should themselves be creating these situations.
I'm not sure how they have, something doesn't add up there.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Isn't the issue that you can always switch to a new fixed-rate detail with your bank without the LTV being recalculated? So because the treasury have sold these loans to a non-bank, they have no possibility of remortgaging so they're stuck with whatever variable or otherwise rate and are thus at a disadvantage.
But the point I was making is that if you're 15 years into paying off a mortgage - and you've got 15 years of capital appreciation - you should want the LTV recalculating. The LTV should be much, much, much lower by now.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
I assumed that she was on an interest-only mortgage and had self-certified the income originally, so even if house price appreciation meant that it was now 75% LTV or whatever, she still can't get remortgage as she doesn't have sufficient income for the borrowing required.
Also worth noting that mortgages pre-2008 were underwritten up to and including 125% LTVs, so it's possible that even after more than a decade of paying it off, the loan outstanding is still not yet small enough to satisfy current restrictions.
Comments
That 15%-20% off the top is enormous, but the owners know that not signing up will result in much less business.
Employees get Holiday Pay, SSP, Pensions etc - if we were to wrap up those into a higher minimum wage for the self-employed then it would eliminate the perversion of encouraging employers to dodge costs by making their employees "self-employed". Either way there'd be a level playing field.
It would also mean that for the genuinely self-employed like lawyers, consultants etc they'd be unaffected by these reforms, since they're already on more than minimum wage you'd hope.
With these delivery apps, every delivery is totally different money and then they had even further complexity by having daily "quests". It is totally impossible to get any sort of handle on what a shift will pay. You could say its not that different to a taxi driver doesn't know what rides he will get, but fees are normally mandated on a per mile basis and yes Uber have a "surge" pricing model, but the delivery apps seem particularly opaque about how the compensation for a drop is worked out, combined with ever changing multipliers and quests.
One of those things that works for the businesses because capital costs are sunk and the marginal cost of a pizza is quite small when on top of an existing business. Same for the drivers. The car is paid for, the cost is the fuel and the value of the labour by the driver.
Neither would work if you had to include the vehicle depreciation in the cost or the overheads of running a pizza business.
On the miscarriage of justice, this jumped out at me:
Malkinson, 55, who was 37 when he went to jail, was released from prison last December for good behaviour. He was locked up for ten years beyond his tariff because he refused to admit to the crime.
Greater Manchester police (GMP) have now admitted that they misled the court by presenting two key witnesses, a couple, as honest. In fact, they had 16 convictions for 38 offences between them. They claimed they were able to identify Malkinson having seen him on a dark street in the middle of the night.
Two aspects - the force majeure to make innocent people admit crimes - a step in the direction of the American out-of-court system and some European systems, which is coming more into our own.
And the corrupt behaviour by the GMP.
And - I think - it is a matter of law that compensation for wrongful imprisonment is not an entitlement; it will have to be a High Court action if he is to get anything.
It is as serious as the Post Office scandal, though his life has been destroyed more thoroughly.
That the 'indeterminate sentence' matter is still going on more than 10 years after they were known to be indefensible suggests that these issues will not be sorted quickly.
I seem to be noticing the spring chill here in east London this afternoon. Those enjoying dining with their Italian cousin, Al Fresco, would need, unless sheltered, the winter coat or some good outdoor heating.
More on-topic, East Ham High Street is now replete with bicycle and motor-bike deliverers outside our McDonalds, KFC and German Doner Kebab (don't ask, really, don't ask).
To "have" to work, even when you are sick, because you need every penny to pay your rent and survive and to be told if you take a day's leave or sick, not only will you not be paid, you'll also be fired is, I fear, a reality for too many.
As @DavidL suggests, the seemingly endless flow of cheap labour in the past 15-20 years has debased employment and industry, not just because wages have been suppressed but companies have eschewed the use of automaton because, to be blunt, it's easier to recruit another pair of hands.
If changes to immigration mean the employment pool has tightened, that will have consequences through the economy, Tightening the labour market may help the lowest-paid but the consequence will be inflation through the whole economy as we saw in the late 1980s when labour shortages led to wage-led inflation.
Cheap labour means productivity and business processes stagnate which impacts across the economy. The "future" in the 1960s and 1970s was meant to be less work and more leisure but the converse seems to be true. The problem is the economy is not positioned to support large numbers of economically inactive people which is why the retirement age keeps going up because the country cannot afford to have so many people "retired" (though you can imagine spending their pension helps the UK economy).
This is all confused and incoherent, isn't it? It's a huge area (like housing) which is multi-layered and connects with other parts of the economy, society and politics.
He lost 18 years - a large proportion of his productive adult life - and (presumably) the chance to have a normal family life.
What’s even worse is he was kept in prison for an extra 20 years because he refused to admit to the crime. That’s a separate issue but equally troubling
(Aside: the NT do do development - https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/local-news/protesters-lose-erddig-estate-homes-5228711)
The point is that the wider community (from next door to the whole country) has a reasonable stake in regulating development, and it is a matter of balance how we implement that.
One example of what happens if you allow a free for all are the 1950s style boiler plate Council Estates that are attached willy-nilly to many of the villages in the Peak District. It is not an improvement.
The question is balance in the planning system.
The Conservatives (who have been in power), under May, published the (Matthew)Taylor report into the gig economy in 2017. As far as I am aware, neither that government nor its successor has implemented the recommendations. Instead, it has been left to the courts (e.g. Uber) to make progress.
I agree with much of David's header, and indeed most of it is already part of Labour policy. It's strange blaming Labour for lack of progress on this though, isn't it? Who's been in power during the rise of the gig economy over the last 10 years?
As I have said many, many times. The culture war is fiction, these are non-issues.
The whole idea of 'exploited gig economy workers' is a bit daft. All of them will have chosen to seek out these jobs. All of them can quit.
"It's time for a change. Vote Conservative."
If developments aren't wanted then nobody will pay for them. A free for all means people have to compete on price and quality, instead of simply being "these are the scraps of what's permitted to be built - take it because that's all that's available."
At the moment there are three categories for employment law purposes - employee, worker, self employed - but only two for tax purposes - employee and self-employed.
Those workers who are not employees are taxed as self employed, with the associated NIC benefits.
One solution would be to tax all workers as employees, bringing them within the PAYE system and employers NIC. Workers would also gain rights to unemployment benefits as a result.
One downside (or upside depending on your point of view) would be to tax members of certain LLP as employees, as members/partners of a professional firm constituted as a LLP are likely to be workers, see http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0229_Judgment.pdf.
Its perverse that people say the self-employed shouldn't pay NIC because they don't get holiday pay etc - holiday pay is paid by the employer, along with Employer NICs, not the state anyway.
And of course he folded.
Britain said on Sunday it was sending more than 600 medical devices including oxygen concentrators and ventilators to India to help the country as it struggles to cope with a surge in coronavirus cases.
The equipment comes from Britain's surplus stock and the first shipment was due to arrive in New Delhi early on Tuesday, the British foreign ministry said.
"We stand side by side with India as a friend and partner during what is a deeply concerning time in the fight against COVID-19," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/uk-ship-ventilators-other-devices-covid-ravaged-india-2021-04-25/
Merge Income Tax, NIC, Benefits etc all together and have a Universal Basic Income and a simply tax rate that applies to everyone on what they earn, regardless of age or employment status.
*33,666,638*
(up 142,215 on the day before, 7-day average 116,774)
That is 50.4% of the total population
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1386346149997600768?s=20
The number of people who've had both doses of a Covid-19 vaccine in Flag of United Kingdom as of yesterday is
*12,587,116*
(up 498,430 on the day before, 7-day average 379,467)
That is 18.8% of the total population
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1386346559915315200?s=20
Although I usually browse and pay through JustEat and then go collect myself in person. As far as I'm concerned I treat them like a department store for food.
Merging Income Tax and NI alone wouldn't do that much. Merging Income Tax, NI and UC altogether would be a gamechanger.
Although I agree that it's best to assume that by the time you get there there won't be any money left.
Trouble for Labour is that the moral crusade doesn't appear to have worked too well in winning elections. Although weirdly one might argue that Labour's most successful election winner took the moral crusade very seriously indeed.
That's why it's an irrelevance. Just roll it up into income tax and be done with it, or turn it into a proper insurance fund.
With unfortunate consequences.
EDIT: and that's not how it's perceived with the whole "qualifying years" nonsense. It passes itself off as a contribution based insurance scheme but it isn't is it — it just goes into the huge pot to be spaffed on whatever.
He's at it again, folks.
Not yet?
Err......
vague about currency,
Vague about a border
Vague about costs and benefits
And she moans about Brexit......
http://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-send-ventilators-to-india-as-country-faces-oxygen-crisis-amid-record-covid-surge-12286883
If someone in poverty can get an extra shift why should they be taxed 90% on their marginal income?
I hope this is not portrayed as 'helping a failed developing country'.
They have been sending vaccines abroad and not playing games about it.
Numbers seem low - should be 5000 not 500, bearing in mind this country has about 30k available now, cases are very low and we can have more made before winter.
I also don't like the way in which earned income is effectively taxed at a higher rate than unearned income as you don't pay NI on the latter. I'm just not sure what the efficiency savings would be given you'd still need to administer a contributory system for those wanting to claim benefits.
Up until 2014-15 Conservatives largely ignored left-wing infiltration of educational and cultural institutions because its energies were focused elsewhere, largely in economic and foreign policy.
https://www.thejusticegap.com/forensically-aware-andy-malkinson-case/
Not sure how reliable it is - the late Bob Wooffinden was never one to let the facts get in the way of his views - but at the same time, any one of the procedural flaws outlined should have been more than sufficient to strike down the charges.
But, you probably won't be able to claim until you are 70 years old.
I guess we could raze the magic money forest to the ground.
It's ludicrous that council tax has not been reformed in three decades. I'd look at trying an LVT but can't claim expertise on it.
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova
Russia
Tajikistan
Interesting ole list and a bit of a theme there (despite many of those not really being recent)
You have to clear that baggage first.
God help us!
I'd strongly recommend saving into a private pension. It's a tax efficient way of saving for all sorts of things.
Or do they just want Westminster to give them permission to hold one whenever they happen to feel like it? Salmond waited nearly four years last time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56878795
I don’t understand why these people don’t just declare bankruptcy and walk away from their houses. Or be forced to.
I don’t own a house and don’t expect my taxes to underwrite other peoples bad investments.
They have my sympathy, but that’s all. The housing market is supposed to be a free market. We shouldn’t bail out those who made bad bets.
Specifically those on ZHC who mostly can barely make the rent as it is.
The other thing it conceals is that the gap between the marginal rate paid by Joe Public - 31% is not so different from the marginal rate paid by Croesus Richman - 41%, or the 46% paid by his even richer brother (IIRC NI drops out at a certain level except a 1% bit which goes on to infinity)
By doing the three simultaneously means you can put the emphasis on the Universal Basic Income and the benefits to the winners and drown out the noise of the privileged squealers losing their cushy tax advantages as part of a rounded package.
So should any of the following exist, to mention a few instances? All of these impose limitations on what private owners can do with their land, and all of them are set up by the whole community democratically.
Public footpaths.
River pollution regulations.
Smokeless zones.
Limitations to releasing new species. eg Signal Crayfish into streams where they are not present.
National Nature Reserves (NNR)
Local Nature Reserves (LNR)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Special Protection Areas (SPA)
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
Heritage Coasts
National Parks
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)
World Heritage Sites.
To choose a sharp case, if I own the Avebury Circle, should I be able to demolish it and build a tennis court?
Where do you draw the lines? And based around which values / principles?
It is only a matter of time before this comes crashing down through the weight of its own contradictions but it has advanced so far through our society it now needs national political opposition to be rolled back. In the meantime, the wailing will be off the scale, together with cries of "culture war", because this toxic ideology dares to be challenged.
But if a premise is not listed, or land is not reserved, then the owner of the land should be able to do whatever the want with it within the law.
Building standards etc should exist providing limitations. But then so long as you're within preset limitations then it should be possible to simply start construction whenever you want.
And you'll be over the moon (I'd imagine) to discover that you aren't one! The reactionary bit, yes, oh yes indeedy, but not reductive. You are not as a rule overly reductive.
I suddenly find her voice very irritating. Whereas I used to quite like her accent.
It must be due to her ubiquity on TV. God knows how the Scots tolerate it (and still like her?!). ANY politician becomes irritating after that much exposure
Reading all that, I'm not convinced that she was raped.
They should never have been bailed out in ‘08
I don’t blame them trying their luck, but a responsible government should tell them, politely, to piss off.
I've come to the conclusion you're a dogmatist. You often initiate a discussion and then, after three or four exchanges (which sometimes even go somewhere with a constructive debate) you get to a place you're uncomfortable with and then just fall back on insults like "reactionary".
This makes it far easier for you to dismiss views you'd rather not engage with, and is the sign of a weak and insecure mind that harbours a secret doubt.
So, yes, you are a dogmatist.
Supposedly she took a loan out high loan-to-value in 2006 and its that high loan to value that is stopping her from remortgaging supposedly.
Except it is now 2021. She ought to be 15 years into paying off her mortgage already, so the capital outstanding really ought to be much lower now.
Plus of course the value of the home really should have appreciated in the past 15 years.
Even if she took out a 95% mortgage in 2006, it really ought to be no more than about 50% of present value by now, meaning remortgaging should be possible. Unless there's more to it than meets the eye.
Once you notice that it's almost impossible to watch her again without counting the bounces and wobbles.
Londonelects.org.uk has sent a handy booklet with 36 pages about how to vote and who are the mayoral candidates.
Historical issues with Rotherham/Rochdale taxi drivers is a concession I will grant you, and the force of the law is being brought to bear on that issue across the country. Will you concede to me institutional racism in the police which is also now being dealt with by the force of the law? (Recent prosecution for a serving officer being part of a banned racist group, as I recall).
Nonetheless, most of your concerns are straight out of the Fox News playbook.
If you've kept up your repayments for fifteen years and the value of the house has gone up with fifteen years of house price changes, why would you not want the LTV recalculating?
Unless there's more to it than meets the eye. Like she hasn't kept up with her repayments which is why she's being rejected.
My mortgage went back to standard rate after the discount period and I demand the government bail me out
But I'm sceptical that this policy offer moves the voting needle very much.
Labour's problem is with the retired. We won't win them over with new workers rights. We need something else.
“A home and a secure job for your grandchildren”
That does sound correct, even if the legislation itself can sometimes be unpleasant. Relying upon judges to be allies for things is problematic in many ways.