politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democrats take small lead in Special Pennsylvania Congressiona
Comments
-
German Social Democrats four percentage points from being in fifth place in new poll:
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
Ref All Out War and the negotiation- One of the things that runs through the book is that Cameron was undermined by his own belief he would win (supported by bad polling inputs), so didn’t put it to the metal on a number of fronts - the ‘negottiation’ and not going after Boris and Gove to avoid future problems in the party post victory. It also suggests that actually the referendum was probably lost before it started after 30 years of pretty much uninterrupted media negativity about our involvement with the project. Chapter on why leave won is a good summary of the rest of the book.0
-
Not when the car was rolling down a hill towards EverCloserUnion.JonathanD said:
The ideal solution for a country that didn't want the EU to go any further.another_richard said:
But without the keys.JonathanD said:
Such a lack of belief in your own country.HYUFD said:
Germany was always going to dominate the EU, the UK could either play second tier alongside France or leave it, it ultimately chose the latterJonathan said:
Has the UK been played? I would not be surprised if certain folk are enjoying the prospect of unchallenged dominance of Europe and a weakened UK.rawzer said:
Just finished reading it, illuminating stuff. It does also sayMarqueeMark said:
Then re-read Chapter 8.rkrkrk said:
I've read it - and that's not the impression I was left with.MarqueeMark said:
Read All Out War, and you will see that he followed the advice of a couple of Whitehalll mandarins who sucked air through teeth and said "Oh, we can't ask for that, Prime Minister" - when many in Europe were expecting us to be far more ambitious in our ask. And would have moved further.....rkrkrk said:
There's an argument to be made that his EU negotiation was actually quite impressive.
It obviously massively disappointed leavers, and underwhelmed given the expectations he had built up, but arguably he did manage to persuade the EU to cross red lines on a tight timescale....
"One of Cameron's team said "We decided to go for what we could get and get it. That was George and Dave's decision. That was our first big error."
and
"In 2015 Cameron did not seem inclined to ask even for what he had publicly suggested he would demand."
and
"We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers", one Cameron advisor said. "They were status quo. They were happy to take "no" for an answer, happy to believe things weren't possible when they could be possible."
‘
But promising high and delivering low is never a good look
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Markel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
The people sensed this and that’s why Cameron’s “never join the Euro” position was defeated. Now we’re free of that constraint on our options.Philip_Thompson said:
No the UK could never be in the driving seat without being in the Single Currency. Even had Cameron won the referendum it wouldn't have changed that simple fact that we would perpetually be the outsiders of Europe.JonathanD said:Such a lack of belief in your own country.
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Markel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/9709348777502842880 -
No, Cameron would at best have won it narrowly, there would be a resurgent UKIP and Merkel would still be the most powerful Leader in the EU and Macron still the new charismatic outsiderJonathanD said:
Such a lack of belief in your own country.HYUFD said:
Germany was always going to dominate the EU, the UK could either play second tier alongside France or leave it, it ultimately chose the latterJonathan said:
Has the UK been played? I would not be surprised if certain folk are enjoying the prospect of unchallenged dominance of Europe and a weakened UK.rawzer said:
Just finished reading it, illuminating stuff. It does also sayMarqueeMark said:
Then re-read Chapter 8.rkrkrk said:
I've read it - and that's not the impression I was left with.MarqueeMark said:
Read All Out War, and you will see that he followed the advice of a couple of Whitehalll mandarins who sucked air through teeth and said "Oh, we can't ask for that, Prime Minister" - when many in Europe were expecting us to be far more ambitious in our ask. And would have moved further.....rkrkrk said:
There's an argument to be made EU to cross red lines on a tight timescale....kle4 said:
I generally favoured camerons style and his Gov was ok, which is about all we can expect, so it was and is a shame he won't be trusted could.Sandpit said:
Interesting. I guess DC wants to see Brexit become a success, as it’s going to be his legacy. He’s also a good man who will do whatever he can to serve his country.TGOHF said:Sun suggests one half of the DC/GO team has got over it....
ttps://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/970916945804525568?s=21
Also a sharp contrast to Messrs Blair and Major in the last few weeks. No comment about TCO, he has no bridges left to burn.
"One of Cameron's team said "We decided to go for what we could get and get it. That was George and Dave's decision. That was our first big error."
and
"In 2015 Cameron did not seem inclined to ask even for what he had publicly suggested he would demand."
and
"We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers", one Cameron advisor said. "They were status quo. They were happy to take "no" for an answer, happy to believe things weren't possible when they could be possible."
‘
But promising high and delivering low is never a good look
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Markel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
Good analysis - I cannot imagine how a border can be imposed in Northern Ireland, there are massive policing, financial, security and practical issues (manning, legal issues) that make it impossible, let alone what the DUP say.....
How do they manage it in every other border everywhere else in the world?
Not saying its ideal but of course it is possible.
A hard border with fencing, wire,cameras, towers, Border guards, gates, search areas Vehicle bays with lighting etc along mountains lakes and rivers is impossible before 2019, even at the end of the transition period is not going to happen.....happy to be quoted on it. nobody wants it - unless you are DUP looking for a 'border dividend' in terms of jobs, money and contracts....I still cannot see how it can happen,
Sinn Fein will play merry havoc and as for the dissident republicans... its inflammatory stuff and exactly what the Good Friday Agreement said would not happen - the NI Assembly isnt even siting at present due to impasse0 -
After the Italian general election result there is more chance of Italy leaving the Euro than the UK deciding to stay in the EUwilliamglenn said:
The people sensed this and that’s why Cameron’s “never join the Euro” position was defeated. Now we’re free of that constraint on our options.Philip_Thompson said:
No the UK could never be in the driving seat without being in the Single Currency. Even had Cameron won the referendum it wouldn't have changed that simple fact that we would perpetually be the outsiders of Europe.JonathanD said:Such a lack of belief in your own country.
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Markel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
0 -
And the failure of Remain to answer the simple question the queen reportedly asked a Buckingham Palace lunch which Clegg attended - Why should we stay? Answer came there none.rawzer said:the referendum was probably lost before it started after 30 years of pretty much uninterrupted media negativity about our involvement with the project.
0 -
It worked for Cameron on deficit reduction.rawzer said:
Just finished reading it, illuminating stuff. It does also sayMarqueeMark said:
Then re-read Chapter 8.rkrkrk said:
I've read it - and that's not the impression I was left with.MarqueeMark said:
Read All Out War, and you will see that he followed the advice of a couple of Whitehalll mandarins who sucked air through teeth and said "Oh, we can't ask for that, Prime Minister" - when many in Europe were expecting us to be far more ambitious in our ask. And would have moved further.....rkrkrk said:
There's an argument to be made that his EU negotiation was actually quite impressive.kle4 said:
I generally favoured camerons style and his Gov was ok, which is about all we can expect, so it was and is a shame he won't be trusted or forgiven by one side or the other to help out if he can, which I'm not certain he could.Sandpit said:
Interesting. I guess DC wants to see Brexit become a success, as it’s going to be his legacy. He’s also a good man who will do whatever he can to serve his country.TGOHF said:Sun suggests one half of the DC/GO team has got over it....
ttps://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/970916945804525568?s=21
Also a sharp contrast to Messrs Blair and Major in the last few weeks. No comment about TCO, he has no bridges left to burn.
It obviously massively disappointed leavers, and underwhelmed given the expectations he had built up, but arguably he did manage to persuade the EU to cross red lines on a tight timescale....
"One of Cameron's team said "We decided to go for what we could get and get it. That was George and Dave's decision. That was our first big error."
and
"In 2015 Cameron did not seem inclined to ask even for what he had publicly suggested he would demand."
and
"We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers", one Cameron advisor said. "They were status quo. They were happy to take "no" for an answer, happy to believe things weren't possible when they could be possible."
‘After the referendum, when Cameron met Merkel at what would be his swan song European Council, Merkel made clear there would have been no other offer forthcoming –whatever we had offered, threatened or pleaded.’
But promising high and delivering low is never a good look0 -
All the good was overshadowed by the act of madness of going to war in Iraq.Jonathan said:
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
Have you not seen his current popularIty ratings.
Britains most unpopular ever PM.
Is your Avatar supposed to be viewed in a mirror?
0 -
0
-
Who put Merkel under pressure? I was under the impression that her decision over the refugees was (for better or worse) entirely down to examination of her own conscience.another_richard said:
Merkel also said she wouldn't accept unlimited refugees.rawzer said:
Just finished reading it, illuminating stuff. It does also sayMarqueeMark said:
Then re-read Chapter 8.rkrkrk said:
I've read it - and that's not the impression I was left with.MarqueeMark said:
Read All Out War, and you will see that he followed the advice of a couple of Whitehalll mandarins who sucked air through teeth and said "Oh, we can't ask for that, Prime Minister" - when many in Europe were expecting us to be far more ambitious in our ask. And would have moved further.....rkrkrk said:
There's an argument to be made that his EU negotiation was actually quite impressive.kle4 said:
I generally favoured camerons style and his Gov was ok, which is about all we can expect, so it was and is a shame he won't be trusted or forgiven by one side or the other to help out if he can, which I'm not certain he could.Sandpit said:
Interesting. I guess DC wants to see Brexit become a success, as it’s going to be his legacy. He’s also a good man who will do whatever he can to serve his country.TGOHF said:Sun suggests one half of the DC/GO team has got over it....
ttps://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/970916945804525568?s=21
Also a sharp contrast to Messrs Blair and Major in the last few weeks. No comment about TCO, he has no bridges left to burn.
It obviously massively disappointed leavers, and underwhelmed given the expectations he had built up, but arguably he did manage to persuade the EU to cross red lines on a tight timescale....
"One of Cameron's team said "We decided to go for what we could get and get it. That was George and Dave's decision. That was our first big error."
and
"In 2015 Cameron did not seem inclined to ask even for what he had publicly suggested he would demand."
and
"We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers", one Cameron advisor said. "They were status quo. They were happy to take "no" for an answer, happy to believe things weren't possible when they could be possible."
‘After the referendum, when Cameron met Merkel at what would be his swan song European Council, Merkel made clear there would have been no other offer forthcoming –whatever we had offered, threatened or pleaded.’
But promising high and delivering low is never a good look
And then changed her mind when put under a bit of pressure.0 -
yeah, they won;'t even be able to get good jobs in the EU after 2020.........DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.0 -
Have you actually crossed the border in other nations before?swing_voter said:A hard border with fencing, wire,cameras, towers, Border guards, gates, search areas Vehicle bays with lighting etc along mountains lakes and rivers is impossible before 2019, even at the end of the transition period is not going to happen.....happy to be quoted on it. nobody wants it - unless you are DUP looking for a 'border dividend' in terms of jobs, money and contracts....I still cannot see how it can happen,
Sinn Fein will play merry havoc and as for the dissident republicans... its inflammatory stuff and exactly what the Good Friday Agreement said would not happen - the NI Assembly isnt even siting at present due to impasse
A hard border with fencing etc is the exception and not the norm. Hence why it became so famous when eg Hungary built its border fence ... it wasn't already there beforehand.0 -
Hadn't realised that the Starmer lad was so inspirational.SandyRentool said:
Keirrottenborough said:Jonathan said:We're about to see an increase in the birth rate of socialists, much as we saw a peak in the birth rate of conservatives nine months from May 2015.
Will Jeremy be the No.1 boys name in a few months time?0 -
Depends on whether a deal is done as per May's speech on Friday. If it is they will.swing_voter said:
yeah, they won;'t even be able to get good jobs in the EU after 2020.........DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.0 -
This was an interesting point too:DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/970712434221748224?s=190 -
How many do now ?swing_voter said:
yeah, they won;'t even be able to get good jobs in the EU after 2020.........DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
Lets start with a list of PBers:
Is there anyone ?0 -
A 2013 yougov poll on the 4 previous PMs had Thatcher first then Blair then Major and Brown was lastbigjohnowls said:
All the good was overshadowed by the act of madness of going to war in Iraq.Jonathan said:
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
Have you not seen his current popularIty ratings.
Britains most unpopular ever PM.
Is your Avatar supposed to be viewed in a mirror?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/12/06/prime-ministers-thatcher-best-brown-worst/0 -
It's more "couldn't if they wanted to". They need candidates able to fund themselves to a considerable degree.OldKingCole said:
Generally been the case that smaller parties don’t put up candidates against larger ones where they agree. UKIP didn’t put anyone up against Priti Patel, for example.although interestingly they did against Boris Johnson. Perhaps they didn’t trrust him!HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/9709348777502842880 -
Indeed. Younger people were pissed about a whole range of things. If you looked far enough down the list (maybe on the back) you might even have found Brexit.Foxy said:
This was an interesting point too:DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/970712434221748224?s=190 -
When and why did the Conservatives move from a party which supported high levels of home ownership to a party which supported high levels of house prices ?DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
A question for this years PPE exams perhaps.
0 -
Comrades, we must defeat the common foe first, the 'Tory' shall go unchallenged if we continue to fight.bigjohnowls said:
All the good was overshadowed by the act of madness of going to war in Iraq.Jonathan said:
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
Have you not seen his current popularIty ratings.
Britains most unpopular ever PM.
Is your Avatar supposed to be viewed in a mirror?
First we achieve victory over opposition parties only then can we concentrate on the true insidious threat... each other!
0 -
And you claim to be a Labour supporter, pah. The only way you can avoid unpopularity in politics is by never doing anything.bigjohnowls said:
All the good was overshadowed by the act of madness of going to war in Iraq.Jonathan said:
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
Have you not seen his current popularIty ratings.
Britains most unpopular ever PM.
Is your Avatar supposed to be viewed in a mirror?0 -
Just curious how long people think this kind of housing plan could be operational before the next election, I assume say a 2019 election would be too early for it to have much impact?0
-
QE and the monetary response to Gordon's crash certainly played a part but I suspect that the true answer is when the median age of their supporters decisively swung from the aspirational to the smug haves, some point in the early 2000s when Blair took the aspirational voters away from them. They absolutely need to re-engage with the aspirational voters and offer them ladders/pathways to joining the property owning democracy.another_richard said:
When and why did the Conservatives move from a party which supported high levels of home ownership to a party which supported high levels of house prices ?DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
A question for this years PPE exams perhaps.0 -
I'm on a very competitive salary - almost a higher earner - and yet not only do I houseshare*, but the flats I share have all reception rooms converted to bedrooms.Foxy said:
This was an interesting point too:DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).stodge said:Morning all
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
(snip)
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/970712434221748224?s=19
There are 300,000+ people hiding in the system, living in unconventional spaces.
(*An idea now rebranded as "co-living"!!!)0 -
While I don't see the interests of the Conservative Party as being paramount or indeed relevant to any national decision, it's hard not to argue with the gist of your point.DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
The aspect for me is that housing isn't just about owning a home which seems a peculiar Conservative obsession. Yes, there must be affordable homes for those young people (particularly in rural and some coastal areas) who have been priced out of their locality but it's also about a strong private rented sector, properly and tightly regulated to ensure a good mixed stock of places to rent (especially in towns and cities) in good condition for those not yet ready willing or able to buy.
As for affordability, the Govenment's answer seems to be to use the market and create much more supply - not but it's perfectly possible to use other mechanisms to provide affordable housing. There are plenty of instances of mixed developments.0 -
As has been said many times before on here, house prices are as much a result of supply and demand for finance as they are of supply and demand for housing.
What we currently have is a perfect storm, of population increasing faster than building, combined with interest rates having been on the floor for a decade making a lot of other investments unattractive.
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
Great if you’ve got a pile of cash and can buy at the bottom of the market, but not so good for the twentysomethings on average salaries who think Corbyn will let them buy in Zone 2.0 -
Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
I would agree the Iraq adventure defines Blair's Premiership and so it should. However his vilification by Tory Politicians and the Tory media has as much to do with him winning three GEs. That was unforgivable!bigjohnowls said:
All the good was overshadowed by the act of madness of going to war in Iraq.Jonathan said:
Did more good than Corbyn ever will.bigjohnowls said:
And if only he hadnt invaded Iraq he would have had a legacy that wasn't being a War Criminal.Jonathan said:
If only Tony Blair had had that kind of support and a clear run, he might have made it to number ten.HYUFD said:The Communist Party of GB has announced it will not put up candidates against the Labour Party and will work 'full tilt' to make Corbyn PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
Have you not seen his current popularIty ratings.
Britains most unpopular ever PM.
Is your Avatar supposed to be viewed in a mirror?0 -
There is no question rented accommodation is a major part of the solution. I would like to see some fairly serious money pumped into Housing Associations to get them building in a major way, particularly in urban areas. But I do think that many aspire to ownership and a party that seems to go out of its way to exclude them will not prosper.stodge said:
While I don't see the interests of the Conservative Party as being paramount or indeed relevant to any national decision, it's hard not to argue with the gist of your point.DavidL said:
Delivering on housing is not only very important for UK plc (a restricted housing market, amongst other things, damages worker mobility increasing the frictional rate of unemployment and discourages investment) but also for the Tory party. At the last election they really offered under 45s nothing except the possibility that their cossetted parents' generation might leave them a bit more on death (and even that was undermined by the Manifesto).
Next time out there really needs to be a program for the younger half of the population. Housing is absolutely key to this. If Javid does produce his 350k houses a year that will be a concrete achievement they can point to. Clearly something needs to be done about University fees too but that is much more expensive.
The aspect for me is that housing isn't just about owning a home which seems a peculiar Conservative obsession. Yes, there must be affordable homes for those young people (particularly in rural and some coastal areas) who have been priced out of their locality but it's also about a strong private rented sector, properly and tightly regulated to ensure a good mixed stock of places to rent (especially in towns and cities) in good condition for those not yet ready willing or able to buy.
As for affordability, the Govenment's answer seems to be to use the market and create much more supply - not but it's perfectly possible to use other mechanisms to provide affordable housing. There are plenty of instances of mixed developments.0 -
Is this really true? I got a mortgage in 1993 (for a house I couldn't live in but that's another story) when it felt like that slow motion crash was going to go on forever.Sandpit said:
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
0 -
TBF no-one else recognises standards across borders, whether centralised or not, apart from EU members. The partial exception are the Australia NZ trans Tasman agreements. But when one big country gets together with one much smaller country they don't need multilateral bodies to sort things out. No doubt if Australia and New Zealand identified several other countries of similar dispositon in their neighbourhood they would set up a multilateral body looking very similar to the European Union.CarlottaVance said:No kidding......
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/9709317888299048960 -
Work out the world you want to see, then work out how to get there.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
There's not point trying to lower the GINI co-efficient unless you think the current one is too high.
If you think smoking is great, why discourage it - or to use a more difficult example, alcohol: is current consumption too high? If yes, why did we scrap the escalator, but if no, why tax it at all?0 -
Housebuilding was pretty strong last year, around 250K houses. We need to accelerate that modestly. I don't think that should be too difficult but giving £2bn to Housing Associations in the budget and encouraging them to bring all their plans to construction would be faster than mucking about with planning laws.TheJezziah said:Just curious how long people think this kind of housing plan could be operational before the next election, I assume say a 2019 election would be too early for it to have much impact?
0 -
Is it in scope to consider what tax revenue is spent on (or at least say that it is not)? Your list is not clear on that point.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
There’s been a whole load of new regulations on the amounts that banks are allowed to lend and reserve ratios since 1993, and there wasn’t a PM who was threatening to kill off the financial services industry.Dura_Ace said:
Is this really true? I got a mortgage in 1993 (for a house I couldn't live in but that's another story) when it felt like that slow motion crash was going to go on forever.Sandpit said:
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
So instead of a house worth £400k now that you can get an 80% loan needing an £80k deposit, you’re instead looking at a house worth £250k that you can get a 60% loan on needing a £100k deposit. In other words, it’s going to cost more to get on the ladder in the first place.
Supply will also dry up quickly as a lot of people won’t be able to sell due to negative equity, which might see prices bounce back a little and become even less affordable.0 -
European integration was supposed to get rid of power politics. Large and rich states were no longer to bully small and impoverished ones. Above all, Europe was not to be ruled by Germany. Today, a few ‘triple A’ countries run Europe with Germany in the driving seat. Gone is equality among member states. New treaties are written with only some states in mind, external (arbitrary) interference in domestic affairs abounds, and policies are chiefly about punishment rather than assistance and incentives.
Jan Zielonka is Professor of European Politics and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/06/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/0 -
-
Indeed. At the moment existing landlords are meeting demand by sub-dividing, building accommodation into loft spaces, creating often unsanctioned dwellings in gardens and outhouses and cramming people in so we have, as I've stated before, a new generation of slums with 20 or more living in a 3-bedroom house.DavidL said:
There is no question rented accommodation is a major part of the solution. I would like to see some fairly serious money pumped into Housing Associations to get them building in a major way, particularly in urban areas. But I do think that many aspire to ownership and a party that seems to go out of its way to exclude them will not prosper.
The problem with urban areas is the value of the land which often puts it beyond HAs and leaves it to traditional developers who either sit on it or build high-end flats.
The other problem is the public sector is desperate to off-load its land and wants top dollar - the current system works well by restricting the flow of new land and keeps land values high.
To go back to the Conservative Party for a moment, one of the biggest blocks has been the unwillingness of the Government to take on local Conservative Councils. It's easy for Theresa May to talk the talk but some local Councillor has to stand up and argue to a group of angry residents why 300 new homes in their village is a good thing and that's not easy. It's been traditionally easier to fudge and prevaricate and that, frankly, is what Governments that don't want to antagonise their supporters do.
Sometimes in politics doing the right thing doesn't win you any friends and loses you the ones you have. I think the Conservatives are terrified of seeing their local base shredded and are therefore unwilling to pursue an active housing policy in rural areas in particular.
0 -
Simple, easy to collect, and not so high as to have distortionary effects, are arguably just as important principles.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
Surely it is Brexit which endangers the financial sector, yet you do not mention Theresa "smash the City" May, still less the entire Conservative "smash the City" Party that called under Brown for the economy to be rebalanced -- is this not what they meant? I'd be shocked if a British political party indulged in partisan sloganising.Sandpit said:As has been said many times before on here, house prices are as much a result of supply and demand for finance as they are of supply and demand for housing.
What we currently have is a perfect storm, of population increasing faster than building, combined with interest rates having been on the floor for a decade making a lot of other investments unattractive.
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
Great if you’ve got a pile of cash and can buy at the bottom of the market, but not so good for the twentysomethings on average salaries who think Corbyn will let them buy in Zone 2.0 -
Not sure to be honest. It is a fairly short essay so probably not.DecrepitJohnL said:
Is it in scope to consider what tax revenue is spent on (or at least say that it is not)? Your list is not clear on that point.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
It must be great to get paid for writing statements of the bleeding obvious. We all do it for free!CarlottaVance said:European integration was supposed to get rid of power politics. Large and rich states were no longer to bully small and impoverished ones. Above all, Europe was not to be ruled by Germany. Today, a few ‘triple A’ countries run Europe with Germany in the driving seat. Gone is equality among member states. New treaties are written with only some states in mind, external (arbitrary) interference in domestic affairs abounds, and policies are chiefly about punishment rather than assistance and incentives.
Jan Zielonka is Professor of European Politics and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/06/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/0 -
Mr. P, good news for Labour. Won't be much cut-through and axing her early will save them more trouble later.0
-
Morris_Dancer said:
Good morning, everyone.
I feel a little sorry for Cameron over the negotiation. He's more pro-EU than the average Briton, and had that even more skewed by the sopping wet mandarins.
F1: Test 2 - Test Harder, is underway. Live feed here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/43287915
On-topic: glad I didn't dip my toe into the market, as I have/had no idea how they'll go.
The total laps figure looks ominous for Mercedes' opponents (though Red Bull seem to be a bit closer to challenging this year):
Bottas 50
Verstappen 41
Vettel 28
Gasly 21
Magnussen 18
Ericsson 16
Perez 15
Sirotkin 11
Hulkenberg 5
Vandoorne 40 -
“Good” in the sense of benign, like a benign tumour. That means taxes that do not distort the allocation of resources, i.e. those that do not affect the marginal costs/utilities/products. This boils down to lump sum taxes.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
0 -
@ajmcq1993: .@ianpaisleymp telling BBC Radio Ulster that an under-car booby trap device has partially exploded under the car of a female police officer who escaped uninjured. Given the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, a deeply worrying development.0
-
Interesting point. Lump sum like what? IHT? CGT?geoffw said:
“Good” in the sense of benign, like a benign tumour. That means taxes that do not distort the allocation of resources, i.e. those that do not affect the marginal costs/utilities/products. This boils down to lump sum taxes.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.JonathanD said:
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
There is no joined up government. 300 new homes in a village is one thing but who will pay for the new school, or even the new car park that will be needed. And really, who wants to live in these small villages in the middle of nowhere anyway?stodge said:
Indeed. At the moment existing landlords are meeting demand by sub-dividing, building accommodation into loft spaces, creating often unsanctioned dwellings in gardens and outhouses and cramming people in so we have, as I've stated before, a new generation of slums with 20 or more living in a 3-bedroom house.DavidL said:
There is no question rented accommodation is a major part of the solution. I would like to see some fairly serious money pumped into Housing Associations to get them building in a major way, particularly in urban areas. But I do think that many aspire to ownership and a party that seems to go out of its way to exclude them will not prosper.
The problem with urban areas is the value of the land which often puts it beyond HAs and leaves it to traditional developers who either sit on it or build high-end flats.
The other problem is the public sector is desperate to off-load its land and wants top dollar - the current system works well by restricting the flow of new land and keeps land values high.
To go back to the Conservative Party for a moment, one of the biggest blocks has been the unwillingness of the Government to take on local Conservative Councils. It's easy for Theresa May to talk the talk but some local Councillor has to stand up and argue to a group of angry residents why 300 new homes in their village is a good thing and that's not easy. It's been traditionally easier to fudge and prevaricate and that, frankly, is what Governments that don't want to antagonise their supporters do.
Sometimes in politics doing the right thing doesn't win you any friends and loses you the ones you have. I think the Conservatives are terrified of seeing their local base shredded and are therefore unwilling to pursue an active housing policy in rural areas in particular.
New towns might be a better idea, especially in the north where economic development is needed. Follow the example of the Conservative governments led by Churchill and Macmillan.0 -
Mr. B, only the first day of the second test (of three, pre-season) so a bit early to say. Mercedes is looking reliable, though.0
-
In this future Herr Selmayr is onto it.....MarqueeMark said:
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.JonathanD said:
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
I would say tendentious statements rather than statements of the obvious. We also do tendentious free .DavidL said:
It must be great to get paid for writing statements of the bleeding obvious. We all do it for free!CarlottaVance said:European integration was supposed to get rid of power politics. Large and rich states were no longer to bully small and impoverished ones. Above all, Europe was not to be ruled by Germany. Today, a few ‘triple A’ countries run Europe with Germany in the driving seat. Gone is equality among member states. New treaties are written with only some states in mind, external (arbitrary) interference in domestic affairs abounds, and policies are chiefly about punishment rather than assistance and incentives.
Jan Zielonka is Professor of European Politics and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/06/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/0 -
Mrs May and Mr Hammond are working hard to keep the City onside and keep the tax revenues flowing.DecrepitJohnL said:
Surely it is Brexit which endangers the financial sector, yet you do not mention Theresa "smash the City" May, still less the entire Conservative "smash the City" Party that called under Brown for the economy to be rebalanced -- is this not what they meant? I'd be shocked if a British political party indulged in partisan sloganising.Sandpit said:As has been said many times before on here, house prices are as much a result of supply and demand for finance as they are of supply and demand for housing.
What we currently have is a perfect storm, of population increasing faster than building, combined with interest rates having been on the floor for a decade making a lot of other investments unattractive.
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
Great if you’ve got a pile of cash and can buy at the bottom of the market, but not so good for the twentysomethings on average salaries who think Corbyn will let them buy in Zone 2.
Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell have both said in the past week that the City is evil and we’d all be somehow better of without it (I paraphrase only slightly), ignoring the facts that the City provides massive revenues to the Exchequer and funds loans for public projects, businesses and - yes - housing.0 -
Yes, he identified taxes on large diesels as an example. I think a lot of this comes to nudge theory. As @TheWhiteRabbit said, first you work out what kind of society you want and then you try to steer people to act in ways consistent with that.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
Big time!FF43 said:
I would say tendentious statements rather than statements of the obvious. We also do tendentious free .DavidL said:
It must be great to get paid for writing statements of the bleeding obvious. We all do it for free!CarlottaVance said:European integration was supposed to get rid of power politics. Large and rich states were no longer to bully small and impoverished ones. Above all, Europe was not to be ruled by Germany. Today, a few ‘triple A’ countries run Europe with Germany in the driving seat. Gone is equality among member states. New treaties are written with only some states in mind, external (arbitrary) interference in domestic affairs abounds, and policies are chiefly about punishment rather than assistance and incentives.
Jan Zielonka is Professor of European Politics and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/06/the-eus-current-problems-are-largely-of-its-own-making/0 -
PPE wonk here. I would add taxes that discourage behaviour that damages the environment. Putting a cost on externalities, e.g. the Carbon Floor Price.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
Normally the answer to most of these questions is the developer who has to share the planning gain by an agreement with the LA. A new primary school or an upgrade to the local sewage plant to increase capacity is typical. The problem comes when the LA gets so greedy that the development is no longer attractive and the houses don't get built.DecrepitJohnL said:
There is no joined up government. 300 new homes in a village is one thing but who will pay for the new school, or even the new car park that will be needed. And really, who wants to live in these small villages in the middle of nowhere anyway?stodge said:
Indeed. At the moment existing landlords are meeting demand by sub-dividing, building accommodation into loft spaces, creating often unsanctioned dwellings in gardens and outhouses and cramming people in so we have, as I've stated before, a new generation of slums with 20 or more living in a 3-bedroom house.DavidL said:
There is no question rented accommodation is a major part of the solution. I would like to see some fairly serious money pumped into Housing Associations to get them building in a major way, particularly in urban areas. But I do think that many aspire to ownership and a party that seems to go out of its way to exclude them will not prosper.
The problem with urban areas is the value of the land which often puts it beyond HAs and leaves it to traditional developers who either sit on it or build high-end flats.
The other problem is the public sector is desperate to off-load its land and wants top dollar - the current system works well by restricting the flow of new land and keeps land values high.
To go back to the Conservative Party for a moment, one of the biggest blocks has been the unwillingness of the Government to take on local Conservative Councils. It's easy for Theresa May to talk the talk but some local Councillor has to stand up and argue to a group of angry residents why 300 new homes in their village is a good thing and that's not easy. It's been traditionally easier to fudge and prevaricate and that, frankly, is what Governments that don't want to antagonise their supporters do.
Sometimes in politics doing the right thing doesn't win you any friends and loses you the ones you have. I think the Conservatives are terrified of seeing their local base shredded and are therefore unwilling to pursue an active housing policy in rural areas in particular.
New towns might be a better idea, especially in the north where economic development is needed. Follow the example of the Conservative governments led by Churchill and Macmillan.0 -
Not those because they incentivise people to make adjustments to their behaviour to minimise tax payments. A head tax or poll tax meets the criterion. But this is just in the interests of economic efficiency, not considering other aims of tax policy.DavidL said:
Interesting point. Lump sum like what? IHT? CGT?geoffw said:
“Good” in the sense of benign, like a benign tumour. That means taxes that do not distort the allocation of resources, i.e. those that do not affect the marginal costs/utilities/products. This boils down to lump sum taxes.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
0 -
I see you beat me to it!FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
0 -
0
-
And Conservatives complained we were badly hit by the global financial crisis because of our dependency on the City and that the economy should be rebalanced. Did they mean we should go back in time and bury valuable metals in the middle of the country like Australia, or did they mean "smash the City"? Surely Corbyn and Cameron were singing from the same hymn sheet.Sandpit said:
Mrs May and Mr Hammond are working hard to keep the City onside and keep the tax revenues flowing.DecrepitJohnL said:
Surely it is Brexit which endangers the financial sector, yet you do not mention Theresa "smash the City" May, still less the entire Conservative "smash the City" Party that called under Brown for the economy to be rebalanced -- is this not what they meant? I'd be shocked if a British political party indulged in partisan sloganising.Sandpit said:As has been said many times before on here, house prices are as much a result of supply and demand for finance as they are of supply and demand for housing.
What we currently have is a perfect storm, of population increasing faster than building, combined with interest rates having been on the floor for a decade making a lot of other investments unattractive.
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
Great if you’ve got a pile of cash and can buy at the bottom of the market, but not so good for the twentysomethings on average salaries who think Corbyn will let them buy in Zone 2.
Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell have both said in the past week that the City is evil and we’d all be somehow better of without it (I paraphrase only slightly), ignoring the facts that the City provides massive revenues to the Exchequer and funds loans for public projects, businesses and - yes - housing.0 -
That of course raises the question of whether you tax something to discourage it or simply ban it. I was never a great fan of allowing people to do bad things to the environment because they bought a permit.SandyRentool said:
PPE wonk here. I would add taxes that discourage behaviour that damages the environment. Putting a cost on externalities, e.g. the Carbon Floor Price.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Is the European Carbon Futures Market still a thing? I've not really come across it for years.0 -
A good case study for your son, the UAE recently doubled the price of energy drinks via excise duties, to attempt to deal with an epidemic of obesity, especially among teenagers, and diabetes. A can of Red Bull is now around £3.DavidL said:
Yes, he identified taxes on large diesels as an example. I think a lot of this comes to nudge theory. As @TheWhiteRabbit said, first you work out what kind of society you want and then you try to steer people to act in ways consistent with that.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Background. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-excise-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-cigarettes-to-start-on-sunday-1.6626390 -
The entropy of the EU. Direction of travel is always towards Brussels.CarlottaVance said:
In this future Herr Selmayr is onto it.....MarqueeMark said:
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.JonathanD said:
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.0 -
Speaking of tax, just seen Checkpoint 301. Seems a Rhode Island politician wants to tax violent videogames at 10%.
Mr. L, a problem with 'moral' taxes is that if they succeed then the revenue becomes zero (because people stop doing the 'naughty' behaviour). I suspect puritanical taxation, such as proposed sugar taxes, are just an excuse to hike taxes with a veneer of moral concern.
As a skinny person who also enjoys chocolate, it bloody annoys me that condescending imbeciles are using fat people as an excuse to try and make me pay more. If they want people who are fat to pay more, institute a fat tax.
I look forward to my rebate.
Edited extra bit: actually, it'd be a subsidy, wouldn't it?0 -
They mean rebalancing the economy by encouraging other industries to develop.DecrepitJohnL said:
And Conservatives complained we were badly hit by the global financial crisis because of our dependency on the City and that the economy should be rebalanced. Did they mean we should go back in time and bury valuable metals in the middle of the country like Australia, or did they mean "smash the City"? Surely Corbyn and Cameron were singing from the same hymn sheet.Sandpit said:
Mrs May and Mr Hammond are working hard to keep the City onside and keep the tax revenues flowing.DecrepitJohnL said:
Surely it is Brexit which endangers the financial sector, yet you do not mention Theresa "smash the City" May, still less the entire Conservative "smash the City" Party that called under Brown for the economy to be rebalanced -- is this not what they meant? I'd be shocked if a British political party indulged in partisan sloganising.Sandpit said:As has been said many times before on here, house prices are as much a result of supply and demand for finance as they are of supply and demand for housing.
What we currently have is a perfect storm, of population increasing faster than building, combined with interest rates having been on the floor for a decade making a lot of other investments unattractive.
How anyone thinks that Jeremy “Smash the City” Corbyn might do anything that actually helps young people in London get a loan to buy property I fail to understand. He may succceed in getting house prices falling as the money leaves the City, but no bank is going to lend money against a rapidly depreciating asset.
Great if you’ve got a pile of cash and can buy at the bottom of the market, but not so good for the twentysomethings on average salaries who think Corbyn will let them buy in Zone 2.
Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell have both said in the past week that the City is evil and we’d all be somehow better of without it (I paraphrase only slightly), ignoring the facts that the City provides massive revenues to the Exchequer and funds loans for public projects, businesses and - yes - housing.
One does not make the poor richer, simply by making the rich poorer.0 -
Guess I'm hoping (or at least the partisan part of me) that they don't move too quickly!DavidL said:
Housebuilding was pretty strong last year, around 250K houses. We need to accelerate that modestly. I don't think that should be too difficult but giving £2bn to Housing Associations in the budget and encouraging them to bring all their plans to construction would be faster than mucking about with planning laws.TheJezziah said:Just curious how long people think this kind of housing plan could be operational before the next election, I assume say a 2019 election would be too early for it to have much impact?
0 -
Yes, it goes from being "the polluter pays" to "the rich polluter pays and doesn't notice and everyone else can't afford to keep doing it". I see this on the same spectrum as paying someone to give you a kidney, where an outright ban is fairer for society than an economic based system that facilitates the wealthy to do as they please.DavidL said:
That of course raises the question of whether you tax something to discourage it or simply ban it. I was never a great fan of allowing people to do bad things to the environment because they bought a permit.SandyRentool said:
PPE wonk here. I would add taxes that discourage behaviour that damages the environment. Putting a cost on externalities, e.g. the Carbon Floor Price.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Is the European Carbon Futures Market still a thing? I've not really come across it for years.
The EU ETS is still there, but in one sense doesn't work because there are still too many permits floating about. In another sense it doesn't need to work because emissions have fallen for other reasons anyway. The UK Carbon Floor Price has had more of an impact, since it is set higher - most noticeably on the reduction in running hours of coal-fired power plants (except when there is a spike in the natural gas price, like last week).0 -
So Red Bull will become a status drink. Youngsters will be able to flaunt their wealth by getting wired on 10 cans of Red Bull, while those without the dosh will have to stick to Lidl cola.Sandpit said:
A good case study for your son, the UAE recently doubled the price of energy drinks via excise duties, to attempt to deal with an epidemic of obesity, especially among teenagers, and diabetes. A can of Red Bull is now around £3.DavidL said:
Yes, he identified taxes on large diesels as an example. I think a lot of this comes to nudge theory. As @TheWhiteRabbit said, first you work out what kind of society you want and then you try to steer people to act in ways consistent with that.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Background. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-excise-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-cigarettes-to-start-on-sunday-1.6626390 -
Thanks that is a good example. The problem with sin taxes, as @MorrisDancer points out, is that the state becomes dependent on the tax and doesn't really want to stop the bad behaviour because revenue would fall. We undoubtedly got into that position with tobacco and, I think, petrol.Sandpit said:
A good case study for your son, the UAE recently doubled the price of energy drinks via excise duties, to attempt to deal with an epidemic of obesity, especially among teenagers, and diabetes. A can of Red Bull is now around £3.DavidL said:
Yes, he identified taxes on large diesels as an example. I think a lot of this comes to nudge theory. As @TheWhiteRabbit said, first you work out what kind of society you want and then you try to steer people to act in ways consistent with that.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Background. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-excise-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-cigarettes-to-start-on-sunday-1.6626390 -
This topic is covered by "Wealth of Nations", which Adam.Smith wrote as philosophical treatise. As I recall, taxes.should be fair, efficient, certain and necessary. Smith identified a number of policies the State needs to be responsible for because of the limitations of the "invisible hand" principle of self interest. Universal education is an obvious example.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
LOL. Go Javid!TheJezziah said:
Guess I'm hoping (or at least the partisan part of me) that they don't move too quickly!DavidL said:
Housebuilding was pretty strong last year, around 250K houses. We need to accelerate that modestly. I don't think that should be too difficult but giving £2bn to Housing Associations in the budget and encouraging them to bring all their plans to construction would be faster than mucking about with planning laws.TheJezziah said:Just curious how long people think this kind of housing plan could be operational before the next election, I assume say a 2019 election would be too early for it to have much impact?
0 -
More Europe and ever closer union are entropy minimising. Splitting and diversifying away from the centre increases entropy and is therefore the more natural state of the world.MarqueeMark said:
The entropy of the EU. Direction of travel is always towards Brussels.CarlottaVance said:
In this future Herr Selmayr is onto it.....MarqueeMark said:
In that alternate future, Brussels would have filled the power vacuum.JonathanD said:
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Merkel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.
0 -
Mr. L, indeed. If everyone stopped smoking right now that would create a massive shortfall in tax revenue, far outweighing the decrease in spending on health for smoking-related illnesses.0
-
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
0 -
Interesting question. I would frame an argument about Bentham's utility. Clearly all taxes create pain, but can have 'utility' or goodness if they create net happiness.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Road Tax is a good simple example. We all benefit from roads.
Income tax that pays for healthcare and education, which breeds happiness is another.
Vice (smoking,drinking) and green taxes are more controversial examples.
A bad tax is one that has no upside or has such a downside it creates a net loss in happiness.
Stamp Duty is an example of the former. Inheritance tax might be argued to be the latter if you believe it causes significant upset to grieving relatives.0 -
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.0 -
Indeed, I think UK fuel tax revenues have been falling for a while as technology evolves.DavidL said:
Thanks that is a good example. The problem with sin taxes, as @MorrisDancer points out, is that the state becomes dependent on the tax and doesn't really want to stop the bad behaviour because revenue would fall. We undoubtedly got into that position with tobacco and, I think, petrol.Sandpit said:
A good case study for your son, the UAE recently doubled the price of energy drinks via excise duties, to attempt to deal with an epidemic of obesity, especially among teenagers, and diabetes. A can of Red Bull is now around £3.DavidL said:
Yes, he identified taxes on large diesels as an example. I think a lot of this comes to nudge theory. As @TheWhiteRabbit said, first you work out what kind of society you want and then you try to steer people to act in ways consistent with that.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Taxes that counter environmental degradation by putting a price on negative externalities, e.g. fuel taxes, congestion charge, carbon taxes. Tragedy of the commons, and all that.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Background. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-excise-tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-cigarettes-to-start-on-sunday-1.662639
In the UAE example, the government has also committed to education programmes around obesity and smoking with the taxes raised from fizzy drinks and cigarettes, to avoid the impression that the taxes went up purely to raise revenue.0 -
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.0 -
Clearly another example of a bad tax from the utilitarian argument is a tax that you cannot pay as it creates serious distress. The flat poll tax and wealth/property tax (that ignore liquidity) are good examples.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
A lump sum tax indeed!Morris_Dancer said:
. . . snip
As a skinny person who also enjoys chocolate, it bloody annoys me that condescending imbeciles are using fat people as an excuse to try and make me pay more. If they want people who are fat to pay more, institute a fat tax.
. . .
0 -
If supply goes up and / or demand goes down, yes.Dura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people. 0 -
Banning is a very blunt instrument (and is liable to be poorly wielded) in comparison to taxation. While there is a clear need to, for example, reduce carbon emissions, I don't see that the state is necessarily the best arbiter of the best way of doing so.DavidL said:
That of course raises the question of whether you tax something to discourage it or simply ban it. I was never a great fan of allowing people to do bad things to the environment because they bought a permit.SandyRentool said:
PPE wonk here. I would add taxes that discourage behaviour that damages the environment. Putting a cost on externalities, e.g. the Carbon Floor Price.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Is the European Carbon Futures Market still a thing? I've not really come across it for years.
Better to simply raise the cost of carbon-based fuels through taxation and let the market decide which uses of carbon-based fuels are still worthwhile at the higher price, and which lend themselves to replacement with alternatives.0 -
Yes, too much hissing, not enough feathers. Mediaeval taxes seem to fall into that territory all too often.Jonathan said:
Clearly another example of a bad tax from the utilitarian argument is a tax that you cannot pay as it creates serious distress. The flat poll tax and wealth/property tax (that ignore liquidity) are good examples.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?0 -
Javid also announced 5 new towns between Oxford and CambridgeDecrepitJohnL said:
There is no joined up government. 300 new homes in a village is one thing but who will pay for the new school, or even the new car park that will be needed. And really, who wants to live in these small villages in the middle of nowhere anyway?stodge said:
Indeed. At the moment existing landlords are meeting demand by sub-dividing, building accommodation into loft spaces, creating often unsanctioned dwellings in gardens and outhouses and cramming people in so we have, as I've stated before, a new generation of slums with 20 or more living in a 3-bedroom house.DavidL said:
There is no question rented accommodation is a major part of the solution. I would like to see some fairly serious money pumped into Housing Associations to get them building in a major way, particularly in urban areas. But I do think that many aspire to ownership and a party that seems to go out of its way to exclude them will not prosper.
The problem with urban areas is the value of the land which often puts it beyond HAs and leaves it to traditional developers who either sit on it or build high-end flats.
The other problem is the public sector is desperate to off-load its land and wants top dollar - the current system works well by restricting the flow of new land and keeps land values high.
To go back to the Conservative Party for a moment, one of the biggest blocks has been the unwillingness of the Government to take on local Conservative Councils. It's easy for Theresa May to talk the talk but some local Councillor has to stand up and argue to a group of angry residents why 300 new homes in their village is a good thing and that's not easy. It's been traditionally easier to fudge and prevaricate and that, frankly, is what Governments that don't want to antagonise their supporters do.
Sometimes in politics doing the right thing doesn't win you any friends and loses you the ones you have. I think the Conservatives are terrified of seeing their local base shredded and are therefore unwilling to pursue an active housing policy in rural areas in particular.
New towns might be a better idea, especially in the north where economic development is needed. Follow the example of the Conservative governments led by Churchill and Macmillan.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/garden-town-brain-belt-cambridge-143721860 -
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yesDura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.0 -
The poll tax may not be pleasant or popular, but it is efficient from a utilitarian standpoint.Jonathan said:
Clearly another example of a bad tax from the utilitarian argument is a tax that you cannot pay as it creates serious distress. The flat poll tax and wealth/property tax (that ignore liquidity) are good examples.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
0 -
I moaned about groundhog day first thing this morning but we are once again suffering blizzard conditions.0
-
The problem with a market based approach to power generation is that unless you are working on a global basis, private sector generators will simply stop generating electricity in the UK and do so elsewhere where they can make a better return. Hence the UK Government offering a ridiculous Strike Price for Hinkley Point B as they were desperate for it to be built to stop the lights going out.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Banning is a very blunt instrument (and is liable to be poorly wielded) in comparison to taxation. While there is a clear need to, for example, reduce carbon emissions, I don't see that the state is necessarily the best arbiter of the best way of doing so.DavidL said:
That of course raises the question of whether you tax something to discourage it or simply ban it. I was never a great fan of allowing people to do bad things to the environment because they bought a permit.SandyRentool said:
PPE wonk here. I would add taxes that discourage behaviour that damages the environment. Putting a cost on externalities, e.g. the Carbon Floor Price.DavidL said:Talking of PPE my son is about to enter a school economics essay competition. The question is what taxes are good taxes?
Initial thoughts duties and other taxes designed to discourage self-destructive behaviours. Taxes which discourage excessive speculation perhaps. More arguably taxes designed to improve the Gini coefficient if you believe that increases societal stability. Possibly taxes which allow society to share in development gains that it has created or facilitated. Generally Colbert's goose may get a mention.
Any more out there suggestions?
Is the European Carbon Futures Market still a thing? I've not really come across it for years.
Better to simply raise the cost of carbon-based fuels through taxation and let the market decide which uses of carbon-based fuels are still worthwhile at the higher price, and which lend themselves to replacement with alternatives.
Apparently, it came as a shock to some in Whiehall that the power generators have no obligation to supply electricity 'for the good of the nation'.
For power generation, I believe some central planning is in order - decide on the low carbon technologies we want and then go ahead and build them. Instead, we have a load of peak shave engine sets springing up all over the country because people have seen a way to make a fast buck out of the Capacity Market.0 -
A good point that, from an economic theory point of view, banks lending less money means a reduction in demand.HYUFD said:
If greater immigration controls and reduced bank lending reduces demand and more houses being built increases supply then yesDura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.
Those who can’t get mortgages will see it differently though, from a more political point of view.0 -
I though banks weren't going to lend against depreciating assets. Or is a tory induced drop in prices qualitatively better than a Corbyn induced drop?Sandpit said:
If supply goes up and / or demand goes down, yes.Dura_Ace said:
Does all this mean prices are going to go down?HYUFD said:
Why are they too expensive? Too high immigration, which will be resolved by ending free movement, lack of supply, which will be resolved by building more houses and banks lending too much pre 2008 which has been resolved by the Bank of England setting a below 4.5 times salary mortgage lending limit for 90% of mortgagesDura_Ace said:
Unless prices drop building more houses does nothing for the problem. It's pointless building another million houses if they are just as expensive as the existing ones.Sandpit said:
In London there would have to be scope for significant price drops, in the 30-50% range, in which case no bank is going to lend at current loan to value against property.
The problem isn't that isn't enough houses, it's that they are too expensive for young people.0
