Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ex-strong favourite BoJo slips even further in the next CON le

1356

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    I think that's a possibility.

    May's decision to exempt Scotland from WFA restrictions was idiotically dangerous.

    It really was an encouragement to regional demands
    Theresa desperate to get Indyref fired up again. Rub the uppity Scots noses in the dirt yet again. What a sordid lot these Tories are.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    brendan16 said:

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    So everyone who works hard should get the taxpayer to provide them with free housing in a multi million pound block in Kensington with £15k a year service charges.

    What would be wrong with a house with a garden in outer London - which is a much more suitable environment for young kids than a block of flats. It's the choice most working Londoners have to make as they are priced out of zones 1 to 3.

    There are right and proper temporary measures - but long term it perhaps isn't a good use of taxpayers money. You don't have to live in Kensington - sorry!
    Nah, it's more the case that people with ways of cash shouldn't be able to socially cleanse their areas and make then inaccessible to those who don't have 'wealth'. Shoving victims off to new areas, new schools, new localities and services just because you don't want to annoy rich people isn't the way forward. They live in Kensington, it's their home, it's not like they set fire to the block in the hope of an upgrade.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Great more bluster and flag waving without any substance. Piss or get off the pot Nicky...
    Is that like Theresa deciding whether she marches on July 12th or not
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    Great more bluster and flag waving without any substance. Piss or get off the pot Nicky...
    she'll be announcing this year's turnip crop is below expecations and people will have to live on saltires
    Free turnips for everyone Alan, she can easily outdo Corbyn and the hapless Theresa the Loser
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.

    May and Corbyn were successful by appearing to straddle both camps. May then screwed it up with the most rapid damascene conversion since St Paul.

    The country is divided and no one likes to see a divided country. I don't think there's any doubt that May becomming the brexiest Brexiteer in the land was what did it for the Tories. Corbyn is still the Corbyn his own party were laughing at just a few months ago and she couldn't beat him.

    Johnson Davis Patel are dead in the water. It can only be Hammond. How are the mighty fallen.....

    I think I agree with this. She wanted to deliver Hard Brexit (yes, I know) and that simply ignored a large part of the electorate. She could say: I will govern for rich and poor and help the poor, but she found herself unable to say: I will seek a Brexit that we can all support.

    Now, of course, there may not be a Brexit that we can all support, but it's what she should have said and tried to achieve.
    Yes exactly. Really, joining the EEA on a fixed term basis, due to expire in the next 7 years for example, and perhaps a Customs arrangement lasting 4 years, would have given the country the time it needs to decide how to move forward (do we stay in single market and accept FoM or do we now decide to go it alone completely).

    She was misled by her cheerleaders in the press - it gave a false sense of security that the country was thinking along the same lines as the Mail and the Sun. In reality people clearly do not yet know what sort of Brexit they want for the future, so they declined to commit to one in the election.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Jezza is waiting for John McDonnell to text him the tower block bill as a fraction of the MayDUP bung.

    That's the problem Theresa May has created. £1 billion will now be the threshold for money that can be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa. £24 billion too (see Jack W on the total cost).
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.

    Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.

    Christ.

    The theory of Corbyn is one thing.

    When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.

    When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?

    The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.

    When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p

    Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,111

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    Though I can understand your mentality - the reality is the wealthy/childless middle classes are the only net tax contributors in this country.

    Soaking them won't end well.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,895
    brendan16 said:

    On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.

    Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.

    Christ.

    The theory of Corbyn is one thing.

    When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.

    When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?

    The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.

    When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p

    Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
    May and the Tories were the ones who told us that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    edited June 2017
    My colleague reckons the NHS gives out prescriptions for paracetomol, aspirin, ibuprofen (Obviously taken up by people who sign on the back...)

    That should end. They are about 50p over the counter !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. 16, I quite agree. People read into elections and results whatever they like.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    edited June 2017

    brendan16 said:

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    So everyone who works hard should get the taxpayer to provide them with free housing in a multi million pound block in Kensington with £15k a year service charges.

    What would be wrong with a house with a garden in outer London - which is a much more suitable environment for young kids than a block of flats. It's the choice most working Londoners have to make as they are priced out of zones 1 to 3.

    There are right and proper temporary measures - but long term it perhaps isn't a good use of taxpayers money. You don't have to live in Kensington - sorry!
    Nah, it's more the case that people with ways of cash shouldn't be able to socially cleanse their areas and make then inaccessible to those who don't have 'wealth'. Shoving victims off to new areas, new schools, new localities and services just because you don't want to annoy rich people isn't the way forward. They live in Kensington, it's their home, it's not like they set fire to the block in the hope of an upgrade.
    The vast majority of people not in public housing need to choose where they live based on costs. What makes people in public housing special?

    It's not their home. It's a home provided by other taxpayers, the vast majority of whom have no chance whatsoever of living somewhere as expensive as Kensington.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    Wow... Someone called in to say that?
    Amazing.

    Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    IanB2 said:

    Roger said:

    Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.

    You seem to have forgotten that by the next election, the UK will have already Left the EU.
    LMAO

    Brexit is the new Corn Laws.

    No. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy is the new Corn Laws.

    Protect the farmers from cheap imports and let the poor pay more for their basic foodstuffs.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    All good questions. I have no idea Morris. I'm angry today and in full knee jerk mode and snobby arse holes defending their right to untrammeled enjoyment of Tower blocks with service charges the same as a years salary on minimum wage doesn't sit well. The entire monetised system we live by is both ludicrous and actively harmful.
    Take on those with net wealth of over 10 million, say. Or don't. It's all disgusting and messy and very far removed from the reality of existence to 99% of the world, and we defend that imbalance as if it were the will of God. Idiocy.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Jezza is waiting for John McDonnell to text him the tower block bill as a fraction of the MayDUP bung.

    That's the problem Theresa May has created. £1 billion will now be the threshold for money that can be found down the back of Philip Hammond's sofa. £24 billion too (see Jack W on the total cost).
    Yes, some on here have made the point that £1bil in reality is not actually that much in the grand scheme of things, and they have a point. Yet it is a great big headline number that looks huge - no one is going to sit down and work it out as a percentage over an X year period per person - they will see the headline saying £1,000,000,000 'bung' to the DUP, and they will not like it.

    To paraphrase the AV referendum campaign: We need a new maternity ward, not a bung to the DUP.

    Expect to see some of these suggestions from the the 2015 election trotted out (26,000 nurses etc) http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32309311
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,494

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,826

    Roger said:

    Now that we have a new demographic to consider-the youth vote-it's difficult to see a Brexiteer either winning an election to be leader of their party or a general election.

    You seem to have forgotten that by the next election, the UK will have already Left the EU.
    Only a fool wouldn't see how Brexit is diminishing us as a country whatever side of the divide you're on.

    Fox and Davis yesterday looked like goldfish that had just leapt out of their bowls. This is going to go on for years. There's no possibility that those involved in this one sided mud wrestling are going to enhance their reputations and there's every chance that they'll drag those who put them there (Johnson Leadom Patel) down with them.

    I'm afraid the next leader of all main parties will need clean hands. On the Tory side of the list above only Hammond and Davidson (a ridiculous entry for obvious reasons) fit the bill.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Corbyn and McDonnell were proposing an extra £50bn of spending *every year*. And that was just on the stuff they admitted to in the manifesto.

    Magic money tree means pretending there's a bottomless pit of public money that can be spent 'for free', not committing existing public funds within the envelope of an overall credible fiscal plan.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    Wow... Someone called in to say that?
    Amazing.

    Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
    Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Woolie, taxation is like Middle Eastern dictators. Just because it's stupid or feels very bad doesn't mean it can't be made much, much worse.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.

    Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?

    Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,471

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Well quite. The idea that Labour is anything other than delighted is bizarre. The longer May stays the happier they will be.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Mr. Woolie, taxation is like Middle Eastern dictators. Just because it's stupid or feels very bad doesn't mean it can't be made much, much worse.

    We live in shit but we don't want to risk living in elephant shit?
    It's not just taxation. It's the entire system. It's existence we are getting horribly wrong. And deep down we all know it,
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807

    Nigelb said:

    It is a measure of how utterly diminished May is that her unnecessary election campaign was convincingly taken apart this morning on R4 by..... Grant Shapps.

    To be fair to Grant Shapps, he does know how to run a Tory majority winning general election campaign, unlike Mrs May.
    He does seem to be another one of May's unnecessary enemies, now coming back to haunt her.
    It seems she didn't like nearly all of the Cameroons. Osborne is one thing, but to make enemies of so many of them was a bad idea.
    The BBC docudrama the other night showed the capture of Gavin Williamson by the May team... he is seen making it a condition of his joining that "he" is got rid of (or words to that effect). Do we know who "he" is? Osborne? Gove? Some minion in the whips office? Timothy, but May didn't deliver at the time? Some other sacking that seemed puzzling at the time?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203

    rkrkrk said:

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    Wow... Someone called in to say that?
    Amazing.

    Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
    Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
    That she might think it - I guess I can believe.
    But that you would call into a public radio programme is absolutely stunning.

    How out of touch can you be? Her new neighbors won't be offering her a cup of tea any time soon....
    If the interview goes viral, she could become the new Martin Shrkeli if she's not careful.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.

    The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    RoyalBlue said:

    I wish the media would give Scottish politics coverage proportionate to its share of the UK population.

    Davis should not have made his statement about getting a motion of consent - they can just insert a clause in the Great Repeal Bill to give it effect notwithstanding the Scotland Acts.

    Why grant a hostage to fortune?
    Davis isn't stupid. Given the arithmetic in the Scottish Parliament, I presume this is a trap. Westminster will offer Holyrood greater powers post Brexit.

    Either Nicola votes it down, in which case she looks like she isn't standing up for Scotland and is voting against further devolution, or she supports it in which case she's just collaborated (as they'd see it) with the Tories.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2017
    Rexel56 said:

    Nigelb said:

    It is a measure of how utterly diminished May is that her unnecessary election campaign was convincingly taken apart this morning on R4 by..... Grant Shapps.

    To be fair to Grant Shapps, he does know how to run a Tory majority winning general election campaign, unlike Mrs May.
    He does seem to be another one of May's unnecessary enemies, now coming back to haunt her.
    It seems she didn't like nearly all of the Cameroons. Osborne is one thing, but to make enemies of so many of them was a bad idea.
    The BBC docudrama the other night showed the capture of Gavin Williamson by the May team... he is seen making it a condition of his joining that "he" is got rid of (or words to that effect). Do we know who "he" is? Osborne? Gove? Some minion in the whips office? Timothy, but May didn't deliver at the time? Some other sacking that seemed puzzling at the time?
    I sort of got the impression from the editing that it was Nicky Morgan - as they cut to her in the next scene. But I could be wrong - it just seemed a subtle hint.

    I don't think May needed an excuse to sack Osborne - and pre his knifing of Boris (Williamson signed up for May before that) Gove was surely a cert for the Cabinet and couldn't have been denied a role given he led the leave campaign.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Woolie, I think that's an exaggeration. There are serious problems with building regulations and, perhaps more so, their enforcement. But this isn't some horrid society of woe and doom.

    The scandal will be fixed, and cladding removed. It'll cost time and money, but it will be done.

    The idea it's ok to financially harm people who had nothing to do with this is not an idea I can support.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Just catching up on the LBC phone in with the woman in the Kensington block who doesn't want Grenfell residents there because her service charge is £15,500 a year and they'll get it for free. Her argument is that her and her husband have worked hard for their money.
    If we explode the myth that all Grenfell residents are scrounging benefit claimants I think we can assume that many of them have worked hard their whole life too, just not perhaps in such a cushy little earner as the complainant and her spouse. So, what they are actually saying is they shouldn't be allowed to live there is because they are not rich, and she is.
    It's one thing that Ticks me off more than anything, people with money thinking they are the only ones that have worked hard for what they have. Channeling my Trotskyite grandparents here when I say screw them and their piles of cash.

    Wow... Someone called in to say that?
    Amazing.

    Their home burned down what two weeks ago - and we can be pretty certain someone in authority didn't do their job right, scores of their neighbours are dead - but this lady feels it's unfair to her they will be living in the same block...
    Someone indeed did. She's worried her council tax will go up and the value of her property will fall. You know, cos of the peasants.
    That she might think it - I guess I can believe.
    But that you would call into a public radio programme is absolutely stunning.

    How out of touch can you be? Her new neighbors won't be offering her a cup of tea any time soon....
    If the interview goes viral, she could become the new Martin Shrkeli if she's not careful.
    It's turned me into Leon Trotsky, she's an anti miracle worker.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    rkrkrk said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.

    Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?

    Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
    Would the SNP really oppose any of those with Sturgeon at the helm? They are still portraying themselves as the true left wing party in Scotland. I think they would probably support most of the Lab manifesto.

    Lib Dems could probably be persuaded to go for the crazier parts of the Lab manifesto in exchange for some hefty concessions elsewhere - PR and second EU ref probably the 2 priorities.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited June 2017
    On topic: This is a rather odd market. It's really two separate probability spaces. The first one pertains to a quick defenestration of Theresa May. In that scenario, it would have to be a men-in-grey-suits job, and there are realistically only two candidates, Hammond and DD. However, DD is needed in his current role; it would be very hard for any other senior figure to pick up the detail of the Brexit negotiations in the way that he has. So I think in the early-defenestration scenario, Hammond rather than DD should be favourite, perhaps on the understanding that there'd be a full contest in late 2019.

    If, on the other hand, Theresa May survives as leader until 2019, then a whole picture will be different. Rather than seeing the change of leadership as a damage-limitation exercise in a crisis - favouring Hammond as a safe pair of hands - attention will turn to wider electoral appeal and refreshing the party image and policies for the post-Brexit world. In that scenario, it is much more likely to be a proper full leadership contest, and I don't think either Hammond or DD would be particularly favourites. BoJo might well fancy his chances (doesn't he always?), but his stock has certainly fallen. Amber Rudd might be a serious contender, but is seriously hampered by her now-tiny majority (thanks for nothing, Theresa!). In a full contest in these circumstances, it seems to me quite likely that someone younger and less obvious at the moment might build up support, perhaps someone not currently in the cabinet (although to take over directly as PM you need at least some high-level experience).

    A week or so ago, the first scenario looked likely, but Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm and I now think we are probably looking at a 2019 or 2020 contest. That makes this market very unpredictable, but overall DD looks too short.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.

    The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
    They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Mr. Woolie, I think that's an exaggeration. There are serious problems with building regulations and, perhaps more so, their enforcement. But this isn't some horrid society of woe and doom.

    The scandal will be fixed, and cladding removed. It'll cost time and money, but it will be done.

    The idea it's ok to financially harm people who had nothing to do with this is not an idea I can support.

    Tbf Morris I'm not really just talking about tower blocks and cladding. It's become totemic of the whole system, and laid bare the inequalities in the way we arrange ourselves as humans. It is of course far too late to do it all differently, so I'm just left with a sense of sadness and anger at the wretched mess Homo Sapiens is. We are cock wombles and we know it.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RoyalBlue said:

    I wish the media would give Scottish politics coverage proportionate to its share of the UK population.

    Davis should not have made his statement about getting a motion of consent - they can just insert a clause in the Great Repeal Bill to give it effect notwithstanding the Scotland Acts.

    Why grant a hostage to fortune?
    Davis isn't stupid. Given the arithmetic in the Scottish Parliament, I presume this is a trap. Westminster will offer Holyrood greater powers post Brexit.

    Either Nicola votes it down, in which case she looks like she isn't standing up for Scotland and is voting against further devolution, or she supports it in which case she's just collaborated (as they'd see it) with the Tories.
    You are of course quite right. I have allowed the red mist that descends when Sturgeon speaks to cloud my judgement!
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.

    The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
    They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
    Doesn't make it wrong though,

    It's amazing how average people love paying more taxes so the kids of mega wealthy can keep more of their inheritance.

    A tax the vast majority don't pay but hate - yet they seem quite relaxed with paying 40 per cent tax on modest earnings that wouldn't even get you a mortgage on a one bed flat in Barking.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Inheritance / death taxes remain the taboo subject, the elephant in the room. It's the only way to avoid high taxes on the working, avoid making pensioners poorer, and still gain significant income. Allow the first £XX,000 tax free and then tax the rest highly. Of course it will never happen because people have an understandable desire to leave things for their children. But for society as a whole it would be the best option.

    The Tories should really be in favour of it as the party that supports hard work and earned wealth.
    They pretty much tried it for social care. It didn't end well for them.
    Yes, it's definitely not going to be on the table again anytime soon. I supported the move on social care - it was a flawed approach but better than the current system. It hit the inheritees not the pensioners themselves. The desire to leave what we can to our children is understandable and innate, but the reality is that many parents spend 18+ years providing for and caring for their children - those children already have benefited enough.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Woolie, I don't buy that, either.

    The alternative to capitalism is available in Venezuela and North Korea. Capitalism can be ugly, and cruel, but it is orders of magnitude better than the alternative. The perfect system does not exist.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,471

    On topic: This is a rather odd market. It's really two separate probability spaces. The first one pertains to a quick defenestration of Theresa May. In that scenario, it would have to be a men-in-grey-suits job, and there are realistically only two candidates, Hammond and DD. However, DD is needed in his current role; it would be very hard for any other senior figure to pick up the detail of the Brexit negotiations in the way that he has. So I think in the early-defenestration scenario, Hammond rather than DD should be favourite, perhaps on the understanding that there'd be a full contest in late 2019.

    If, on the other hand, Theresa May survives as leader until 2019, then a whole picture will be different. Rather than seeing the change of leadership as a damage-limitation exercise in a crisis - favouring Hammond as a safe pair of hands - attention will turn to wider electoral appeal and refreshing the party image and policies for the post-Brexit world. In that scenario, it is much more likely to be a proper full leadership contest, and I don't think either Hammond or DD would be particularly favourites. BoJo might well fancy his chances (doesn't he always?), but his stock has certainly fallen. Amber Rudd might be a serious contender, but is seriously hampered by her now-tiny majority (thanks for nothing, Theresa!). In a full contest in these circumstances, it seems to me quite likely that someone younger and less obvious at the moment might build up support, perhaps someone not currently in the cabinet (although to take over directly as PM you need at least some high-level experience).

    A week or so ago, the first scenario looked likely, but Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm and I now think we are probably looking at a 2019 or 2020 contest. That makes this market very unpredictable, but overall DD looks too short.

    Great Post.

    There is the third scenario. An event between now and 2020 precipitating a contest. A major Brexit negotiation failure, May walking due to ill health or a failed Commons vote. Worth thinking what they might be and who would be a safe pair of hands.

    But if she stay the course (yes please, fingers crossed!), the chances that we can predict the next leader are low. Who would have predicted John Major succeeding Thatcher after the 1987 GE?

    Agree DD is too short.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203

    rkrkrk said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Don't get carried away Nick... There's still a long way to go before a Labour government.

    Out of interest - what in the current Labour manifesto do you think would be impossible to get support from SNP/Lib Dems?

    Tuition fees and corporation tax rise I imagine would be fine. Nationalising water companies i doubt... Railways perhaps?
    Would the SNP really oppose any of those with Sturgeon at the helm? They are still portraying themselves as the true left wing party in Scotland. I think they would probably support most of the Lab manifesto.

    Lib Dems could probably be persuaded to go for the crazier parts of the Lab manifesto in exchange for some hefty concessions elsewhere - PR and second EU ref probably the 2 priorities.
    I don't think we would see afull coalition with either although it's possible.
    Can't see labour going for 2nd ref and PR was surely killed off by the AV vote?
    House of Lords reform I think could be the LD carrot.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2017

    Mr. Woolie, I don't buy that, either.

    The alternative to capitalism is available in Venezuela and North Korea. Capitalism can be ugly, and cruel, but it is orders of magnitude better than the alternative. The perfect system does not exist.

    Maybe we should be investing energy in finding a better way? Technology stands the chance of setting us free. Both from poverty and this rock. North Korea isn't the only alternative.
    The whole capitalism is a bastard but it's our bastard shtick is getting old, it's time for something new, something better. I'm just a small woolie though and I don't have the answer. Just the question.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,826
    edited June 2017

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Indeed and as an MP's worth is now officially valued at £100,000,000 (£1,000,000,000 divided by 10) I'm sure in the spirit of free enterprise several Tories must be considering crossing the floor
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,678
    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes. Prices would adjust accordingly and make first time buying more affordable. The introduction would be tricky.

    I find it frustrating (from an envy point of view I must admit) to know people living in certain parts of London who are now moving out on retirement to have made more money from their home than on working and not paid a penny in tax on it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. Woolie, technology can offer opportunities, but we should also be wary of tech giants gaining too much power. Governments, at least, can be held to account, at least to an extent. If tech giants gain monopolies, that could put us in a difficult position.

    It'd be nice if the mega-wealthy helped their own countries, not unlike Titus Salt setting up Saltaire.
  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    The DUP leadership have never killed anyone. Is it simply opposition to gay marriage that makes them extremists in your view? Do you apply the same standard to Labour Muslim politicians?

    As for the money tree/public funds argument, I pointed out that it's about 0.02% of public spending. Labour's manifesto spend that many thousand times over. We spend eight times that amount every single year just by being members of the European Union.

    It shows how far Labour's ambitions have fallen that they celebrate coming second in an election as a win. When people like Owen Smith line up to serve under a man they have previously described as being unfit to be Prime Minister, it shows their true cynicism.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    malcolmg said:

    I suspect May will stay until the Brexit deal has been agreed, then stand down. Davis chances will hinge upon how well the deal is perceived - and we've got another 18 months to see who else emerges as a potential leader. I'm not sure the Tories will want to experiment again with a 'safe pair of hands whose a bit dull' leader......

    They just went for dull pair of hands this time
    Which, given recent experience, they would be ill-advised to do again.....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate.
    2. Ditches swathes of manifesto
    3. Agrees C&S with another party.
    4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa
    5. Defers Queen's Speech
    6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election.
    7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers
    8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.

    Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.

  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304
    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    Coming first in a contest is typically considered winning.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2017

    Mr. Woolie, technology can offer opportunities, but we should also be wary of tech giants gaining too much power. Governments, at least, can be held to account, at least to an extent. If tech giants gain monopolies, that could put us in a difficult position.

    It'd be nice if the mega-wealthy helped their own countries, not unlike Titus Salt setting up Saltaire.

    Well, yes. You need technology without the tech giants. We need to find a way to progress without corporatism.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    brendan16 said:

    On topic. I probably wouldn't vote for a Davis-led Tory party (assuming I'm ever registered to vote in GB again). His petulant by-election stunt was pathetic. Only Liam Fox would be likely to have a similar effect on me.

    Though I guess I might if the alternative was still Corbyn.

    Christ.

    The theory of Corbyn is one thing.

    When people voted on 8 June even many of those voting Labour thought May would win easily based on the polls. It was a risk free protest and a way of cutting her majority.

    When it is a real not a theoretical prospect will voters Baulk at the last minute?

    The odd thing is Mrs May got 43 per cent - - 6 per cent more than Cameron in 2015 - which in every election since the 1980s would normally have given her a landslide majority. And she was doing even better when the debate was just about Brexit and backing a hard Brexit stance.

    When the election stopped being about Brexit and became about the dementia tax, pensions, WFA, austerity and tuition fees is when she started to lose her majority.p

    Brexit was hardly discussed for the last 3 weeks of the campaign - yet now we are told it was a referendum on Brexit?
    If it was "a risk free protest" why has Labour's vote increased to a 5 to 6 point lead in all the polls published since the GE?

    The fact that the swing to Labour was higher the more Remain voters in a seat would indicate that for many it was about Brexit.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    In a democracy elections are not out of the question. In a world with Trump as President, Corbyn as PM is not unthinkable. Bad, but not unthinkable.

    Have you thought about what it would be like with President Trump dealing with PM Corbyn.....?

    What a pair!
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.

    But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Sore loser.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.

    A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767

    In a democracy elections are not out of the question. In a world with Trump as President, Corbyn as PM is not unthinkable. Bad, but not unthinkable.

    Have you thought about what it would be like with President Trump dealing with PM Corbyn.....?

    What a pair!
    a couple of years ago we used to joke about it.....now...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    daodao said:

    And it's a natural fit - both are conservative and unionist parties.

    .... and are both full of homophobic, religious bigots and intolerant idiots?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,678

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    Coming first in a contest is typically considered winning.
    I think everyone thinks about it from their own personal point of view. Although the Conservatives are in Govt I don't think any Conservatives think that was a 'win' and Labour clearly did much better than anyone, including themselves, expected so for them it is a 'win'.

    That is true in so many walks of life.

    Coming last in a race but breaking your personal best for instance.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
    I think you find that "bugger that" is specifically excluded from the Con/DUP deal except in cash terms for everyone outside of Ulster.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Theresa May seems to have got through the immediate storm

    There was moderate (not thunderous, but far from muted or ironic) cheering when May got to her feet in the HoC yesterday - barring another disaster she's safe for the moment.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,895

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.

    A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
    Trouble is they only 'beat every other party' individually.
  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate.
    2. Ditches swathes of manifesto
    3. Agrees C&S with another party.
    4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa
    5. Defers Queen's Speech
    6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election.
    7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers
    8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.

    Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.

    The party that won an election:

    1. Came first in votes.
    2. Came first in seats.
    3. Takes the office of Prime Minister
    4. Takes the office of Chancellor
    5. Takes the office of Home Secretary
    6. Takes the office of Foreign Secretary
    7. Takes all the other cabinet seats.
    8. Takes all the non-cabinet ministerial seats.
    9. Has majority backing for all Queen speeches
    10. Has majority backing for all budgets
    11. Has majority for Brexit

    A combination of ardent left-wingers and pro-Europeans are very animated at the moment because they thought May would have to resign and they now see their window of opportunity is slipping away from them. The briefing yesterday that Hammond would be PM and Davis would be the one that would legitimise him was a last ditch effort that slipped away in a few hours when Davis came out and pointed out what a good PM he thinks Theresa May is.

    Theresa May now has a majority in parliament, will deliver Brexit and give us an extra two years of conservative governance. Unlike David Cameron's first term she will also not be dependent on left wingers.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,120
    I thought David Davis performed quite well on Marr on Sunday so if Theresa should "collapse" he'd be my tip to take over.

    Still think it would be preferable for May to stay on until Spring 2019 and then hand over to a new face though.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.

    A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
    Nobody won.

    It's like a county cricket match. Labour got two bowling points, the Tories 3 batting points in a drawn match. Ahead but no winner.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    1. Fails to secure a HoC majority and loses mandate.
    2. Ditches swathes of manifesto
    3. Agrees C&S with another party.
    4. Finds £bn's down the back of the sofa
    5. Defers Queen's Speech
    6. PM sucking lemons for two weeks after the election.
    7. PM unable to ditch sidelined cabinet ministers
    8. Tory leadership candidates circling the political dead woman walking.

    Any more of these "wins" and PB Tories will require £100m each to recover.

    The party that won an election:

    1. Came first in votes.
    2. Came first in seats.
    3. Takes the office of Prime Minister
    4. Takes the office of Chancellor
    5. Takes the office of Home Secretary
    6. Takes the office of Foreign Secretary
    7. Takes all the other cabinet seats.
    8. Takes all the non-cabinet ministerial seats.
    9. Has majority backing for all Queen speeches
    10. Has majority backing for all budgets
    11. Has majority for Brexit

    A combination of ardent left-wingers and pro-Europeans are very animated at the moment because they thought May would have to resign and they now see their window of opportunity is slipping away from them. The briefing yesterday that Hammond would be PM and Davis would be the one that would legitimise him was a last ditch effort that slipped away in a few hours when Davis came out and pointed out what a good PM he thinks Theresa May is.

    Theresa May now has a majority in parliament, will deliver Brexit and give us an extra two years of conservative governance. Unlike David Cameron's first term she will also not be dependent on left wingers.
    Labour performed far better than expectations, the Conservatives performed far worse. But, that's not quite the same thing as winning or losing.

    The Conservatives are like some cocky Premier League team that expected to beat a far inferior opponent ten nil, and finally eaked out a 4-3 win.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,111
    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    Err, no, the royals have taken only a small slice of the PROFITS that the Crown Estates generate.

    It is capitalism in action. The royals gracious contribute a large amount to the exchequer.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,678

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Mr. T, isn't that increase due to the rising profit of the crown estates?

    The media juxtaposition is very poor, although the reality seems quite easy to understand. If people want to.

    Mr. Woolie, must admit, I think people are underestimating the dangers of technology. But there we are. *returns to etching out exciting new story on a block of limestone*
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203
    Across the pond - CBO has gone for 22m uninsured under Senate plan.
    But the key number I think is the estimated 15m losing insurance next year.
    Might just be an issue in the mid-terms.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,068
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.

    A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
    Trouble is they only 'beat every other party' individually.
    Beating all other opponents individually wins you every sporting competition in the world (with one ludicrous exception - NCAA college (American) football).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way. Bobajob's little rant sums it up nicely. Association with Ulster extremists? Magic money tree? Waste of public funds? May is doing an excellent job of shooting one Tory campaign line after another.
    Enjoy it while it lasts....As Mrs May and Ms Sturgeon have found out, Mr Gravity will catch up with you sooner or later....
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    You get the impression the Corbynistas are somewhat rattled this morning. From zero expectations just two months ago, they realised they had a small but tantalising chance of an unbelievable outcome. But it failed. How painful for them to contemplate five more years after they started to truly believe that JezWeCan.

    You get that impression? Some of us are quite chuffed in a deplorably partisan way.
    And this is why you are being rightly accused of hubris. You lost the election, Nick...
    So did your Tories but oddly your own hubris doesn't allow for that fact.
    "My" Tories?

    Anyway, the Tories won the election, they didn't lose it...
    Risible response.

    A party that "won" an election :

    As risible as you calling them "my" Tories, Jack.

    A party that won an election beat every other party. Or are you saying that Labour beat them?
    Nobody won.
    Did Labour beat the Tories or did the Tories beat Labour?
  • CornishJohnCornishJohn Posts: 304
    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    £6m. To put that in context it's 0.015% of the cost of nationalising the national grid, just one of the huge costs in Labour's plans.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767
    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
    It would also totally freeze up the housing market. No one would move, but just keep their house and then rent out another one whilst renting the house they owned.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,678
    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
    Agree.

    Although I was always amazed that getting rid of mortgage tax relief happened for the same reasons.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    The Royals are the magic money tree.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited June 2017
    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Jonathan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Regarding the DUP deal, I do wonder if there is a longer term risk to British democracy.

    (Hear me out.)

    If I were an ambitious, sensible and smart leader of the Scottish nationalists, I would be thinking less about Scottish independence and more about Scottish pork. Bringing government spending to Scotland would seem to be a surer route to re-election than another referendum. "Only we will stand up for Scottish interests, and only we can bring jobs to Scotland" is a pretty effective rallying cry.

    Now imagine you were sitting in Cornwall. It's another poorer part of the UK, with strong regional identity. It even has an existing nationalist party. Perhaps it could run candidates that would stand up and bring pork to Cornwall? The LibDems and Labour Party are weak there, and someone standing up for local interests who could bring a billion pounds to the region... well that would look pretty attractive.

    I suspect I'm wrong. But if regionalism - and begger thy neighbour politics - is seen to pay, then we will get more of it. This is not a good thing.

    The government are paying a going rate of £100M a vote. That's a big incentive.
    ...even that's untrue. There will be hundreds of votes on which the DUP will support the Govt. The left and Mathematics are strangers to one another.
    Oh.. so if the DUP support the govt 200 times then £5m per vote is a good rate?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,120
    Osborne predicated Theresa May would be out by Wednesday 12th June...

    Tick Tock
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,273
    kjh said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    brendan16 said:

    Mr. Woolie, interest rates have been 0.5% or lower for a decade. If people have struggled to save, particularly those with low incomes, screwing them over for doing so is indefensible.

    How are you going to define wealth for this punishment tax? Include a house? Some people will have lived in London for decades and become notional millionaires. But to pay a Bourgeois Tax they'd have to sell their home. Will ISAs be included, or exempt?

    Taxing based on vindictiveness is not only morally wrong but harmful to the wider economy as it discourages saving, already at a very low level, and people from setting up here as a vengeful leftist government might just seize their assets if they feel like it.

    No - just have a capital gains tax on primary homes. It applies to almost every other asset that rises in value - why not your house.

    And similarly how about taxes - like land value capture - to fund major infrastructure projects. Crossrail cost £14 billion - those with homes on the route have seen their house prices rise massively as a result yet have not paid a penny towards those costs. Surely than isn't right either?
    CGT on homes would have to be rolloverable for life, otherwise no one could afford to move. Therefore it would all be payable on death. It would, in other words, be a dementia tax on steroids and not limited to the demented. Unless Tezza has secretly rehired Fiona and Beardie and is going straight back to the country, I doubt we will see such a proposal in a manifesto any time soon.
    Why could nobody afford to move with CGT on homes.
    Say you bought a house for £100k and had to move due to work and the house was worth £200k.

    You then could not afford the same equivalent house in another area (even if the price was the same), as you had to pay the tax on the gain. That's not fair, nor is it healthy for the economy.
    Life is tough. There are other expenses in moving also. Is that unfair? It is life.

    It also isn't fair that a £500,000 in London later sells for 1,500,000 and no tax is paid on the £1m windfall profit.
    Fairness doesn't come into it.

    Imposing CGT on primary residences would be electoral suicide for any party that proposed it.
    Agree.

    Although I was always amazed that getting rid of mortgage tax relief happened for the same reasons.
    Yes, there is no economic justification for the cgt exemption on principal private residences, but no Political Party that has hopes of being in power is going to touch the subject.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,120
    Blue_rog said:
    That'll buy plenty of bottles of fine wines for the eurocrats! :D
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    Sean_F said:

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
    It really would be sweet electoral revenge if the far Left proposed a raid on property, that made the dementia tax look like pennies in a tin, and came a cropper as a result.

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Mortimer said:

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    Err, no, the royals have taken only a small slice of the PROFITS that the Crown Estates generate.

    It is capitalism in action. The royals gracious contribute a large amount to the exchequer.

    Then you might want a word with the pro-royal Daily Mail because I can assure you their coverage does not reflect your benign interpretation.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    Are people really wittering about a billion quid ?

    Its a trivial amount compared to the money thrown away so Cameron could play Lord Bountiful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

    And at least the DUP money will be spent in this country.

    Planned Overseas Aid = Bad
    Unplanned Ulster Bung = Good

    What's a billion quid or rather approx £24bn between the new bosom pals of the Con/DUP APP ?
    It all comes from the same magic money tree only some is being distributed outside of the UK and some within it.

    But perhaps you can explain where the £24bn comes from. If you say WFA and TLP then you're even more inaccurate than your election prediction.
    Another magic money tree follower ?!?

    Presumably the Conservative manifesto was costed somewhere and not just on the back of a fag packet. If the savings from not implementing WFA and TLP changes are dropped where is the shortfall coming from? .... presumably another magic money tree in the same orchard?
    So you can't explain the £24bn - thought not.

    But we are on the magic money tree and that's because the country wants to be. On a purely practical issue there is no chance of getting restrictions on TLP and WFA through parliament irrespective of the DUP stance.

    Still interesting to see you having reservations about the magic money tree now - I don't remember you being so concerned when Osborne was borrowing hundreds of billions more from those same magic money trees than he said he would.
    Utter garbage. We are on the magic money tree because a humiliated and exhausted PM had to harvest its fruits to buy off a crazed bunch of regionalist sectarian homophobes so she could limp on in government. Nothing you can say or do will change that undeniable fact. And it will be repeated back to the Tories over and over and over again. Suck it up.
    Translation: you are annoyed the Tories are now securely in office.

    Go to bed.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767

    Frank Gardner‏Verified account @FrankRGardner
    UK Natl Security Adviser on threat from N Korea ballistic missiles: "London is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles"

    Only by 600 miles.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,767

    Sean_F said:

    I'm in a soak the rich mood today. Come on Corbyn, announce a proposal for a one off wealth tax to pay for the refurbishment and infrastructure around our crap tower housing to bring them up to scratch and make safe. Then it can easily be done again and again. Fuck em. Go on Jezza, do it, do it.

    Speaking for the moderately well off (therefore, rich in Corbynista terms) I say "Bugger That", to your proposal.
    It really would be sweet electoral revenge if the far Left proposed a raid on property, that made the dementia tax look like pennies in a tin, and came a cropper as a result.

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
    Well they're thinking of it with LVT.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    this is an appalling humiliation and there’s no escaping it.

    Quite literally within hours of the Brexit vote, almost exactly a year ago, the FM had decided that IndyRef2 was essential for the well being of the nation.

    There had to be legislation introduced to the Scottish Parliament because, only by having the framework in place now, right now, this minute, could we be ready for lift off when the great day of decision came.

    There was a press conference when the Bill came forward. There was an official photograph of the First Minister, shoes off, relaxing on the sofa at Bute House, just dashing off a letter to Theresa May demanding the right to hold a vote.

    And this week? This week, not so much.

    We already know what the First Minister is going to say and it won’t be “Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes!”


    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1197665/nicola-sturgeon-faces-unpleasant-task-of-shooting-indyref2-in-the-back-of-the-head-says-andrew-nicoll/
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    OllyT said:

    See we have managed another shake of the "magic money tree" for the royals today. Funny how the money's always there for certain things.

    If you think the Royals sit back and bask in their luxury, day-after-day, and do nothing but indulge themselves, then you just haven't a clue about them, the civil list or our constitution.
    Interesting how righties always jump to the defence of an hereditary privileged institution that much of the world had the good sense to bin years ago.
This discussion has been closed.