Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Good morning and welcome
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
You ask: what do the Liberal Democrats exist to do?
Well, to provide a home for people who are idologically liberal, the second most common ideology held (after conservatism). It`s that simple. The LibDems shouldn`t have lost their way. But they have.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
You might, your children and relatives would rather not see inheritance tax raised
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
100%. It is a global issue. Taken to extremes, if we, hypothetically, were the only European or Western country still observing a lockdown, the pressure to ease or end it will be irresistable. The media has acknowledged this is a global issue only to an extent and remains parochial in its outlook. I'm married to an American. If, ultimately, the lawful choice (I'm not going to do anything unlawful in this) came to following her back to a post-lockdown States or stay here cooped up indefinately, I would likely choose the former. I can still work from home in Connecticut. Vermont is activly seeking to attract remote workers to hoover (or vacuum I guess) up their taxes. Closer to home, Frankfurt will look like a bright centre of the universe compared to London. Foreign nationals and institutions will be flooding out of the country.
And it's not just about whether a lockdown will continue to be observed either. Ultimately the economy will be devastated to an extent that the Government will have to feed us all, and it is neither prepared to, nor capable of, doing that. I think the furlough scheme will have to be ended after 12-weeks. It is easy to support as a vital stop gap but at some point it will become an incentive not to work.
Mr. Meeks, high income people have the choice to save, or to spend.
If you tax the savings of those who've chosen to spend rather than save but don't have high income then you're wiping out years of hard work.
I do acknowledge that you'd be hit from both sides by such a switch, but would hazard a guess that both your income and your assets are such that you'd be able to bear either taxation approach without any actual difficulty.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
100%. It is a global issue. Taken to extremes, if we, hypothetically, were the only European or Western country still observing a lockdown, the pressure to ease or end it will be irresistable. The media has acknowledged this is a global issue only to an extent and remains parochial in its outlook. I'm married to an American. If, ultimately, the lawful choice (I'm not going to do anything unlawful in this) came to following her back to a post-lockdown States or stay here cooped up indefinately, I would likely choose the former. I can still work from home in Connecticut. Vermont is activly seeking to attract remote workers to hoover (or vacuum I guess) up their taxes. Closer to home, Frankfurt will look like a bright centre of the universe compared to London. Foreign nationals and institutions will be flooding out of the country.
And it's not just about whether a lockdown will continue to be observed either. Ultimately the economy will be devastated to an extent that the Government will have to feed us all, and it is neither prepared to, nor capable of, doing that. I think the furlough scheme will have to be ended after 12-weeks. It is easy to support as a vital stop gap but at some point it will become an incentive not to work.
Well - you know I`m going to agree with that post.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
Yup - shot himself in the foot - oh wait ...no..there was a shot involved somewhere....
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
But otherwise he got off Scott free.
...but the rate of his fall from grace could be measured in Newtons.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
You might, your children and relatives would rather not see inheritance tax raised
True - but it`s not their money. people shouldn`t live their lives in expectation of an inheritance.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
100%. It is a global issue. Taken to extremes, if we, hypothetically, were the only European or Western country still observing a lockdown, the pressure to ease or end it will be irresistable. The media has acknowledged this is a global issue only to an extent and remains parochial in its outlook. I'm married to an American. If, ultimately, the lawful choice (I'm not going to do anything unlawful in this) came to following her back to a post-lockdown States or stay here cooped up indefinately, I would likely choose the former. I can still work from home in Connecticut. Vermont is activly seeking to attract remote workers to hoover (or vacuum I guess) up their taxes. Closer to home, Frankfurt will look like a bright centre of the universe compared to London. Foreign nationals and institutions will be flooding out of the country.
And it's not just about whether a lockdown will continue to be observed either. Ultimately the economy will be devastated to an extent that the Government will have to feed us all, and it is neither prepared to, nor capable of, doing that. I think the furlough scheme will have to be ended after 12-weeks. It is easy to support as a vital stop gap but at some point it will become an incentive not to work.
Well - you know I`m going to agree with that post.
And that decision seems like it might be a critical fault line for post Corona politics.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
Come on now ... Tories still believe in that. Exceptional circumstances and all.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
Oh don't worry, I fully expect to pay indirectly through inflation.
But that's no different to the last decade, which is why we have such a disparity between those who own a house and those who don't.
Very long time lurker more or less first time poster. Apologies for the length of the post but for once this is a subject that I feel I can add something at least a little useful.
I think it's not appreciated enough how long the Lib Dems remained essentially an SDP Liberal Alliance even after their merger. Until 2015 their seats could very roughly be divided into two types. You had the craggy Liberal individualists in the Celtic fringes and some of the remote rural northern seats. These are now mostly gone due to that constituency's penchant for Brexit. Only Tim Farron and Alastair Carmichael remain to represent it.
Then you had the SDP leaning seats in the middle class south and the more well to do suburbs of northern towns. The Lib Dems have had more success in holding these or at least remaining competitive. It's also in my experience the tradition that most of the activists inhabit.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
Good morning and welcome
Given that analysis, which seems not unreasonable, we must ask (and not for the first time) what the Liberal Democrats exist to do, beyond striving to ensure their own apparently futiile self-perpetuation.
Assuming that Starmer makes good on his programme, then the last reason for the left-liberal middle classes to vote Lib Dem - that they are basically a nicer version of Labour, without all the far-left/anti-Semitic trash or the havering about Europe - is removed.
I disagree.
There is a good number of people in this country who won’t vote Labour because, whatever Keir does, there will always be a RLB tendency in some position of power to terrify people.
These people are not cultists, though, and decidedly uninterested in cultist totems (revoke), wannabe cult leaders (Swinson), or lost causes (EU re-entry).
There is a niche for LIBERAL politicians who believe some or more of the following: - Our democracy is imperfect - Our judicial system discriminates against those without time, money or existing power. - The country is grotesquely over-centralised - Digital monopolies are out of control - Society is now engineered to discriminate against working people and young people especially. - Green technologies will power the next industrial revolution...but windmills can be an eyesore. - The UK’s obsession with housing has perverted the economy etc
If the Lib Dems can become the party for digital geeks, mums from St Albans, national park conservers, and Cornish nationalists — then they can recover.
If they become the party of EU die-hards, trans rights campaigners, angry Guardian columnists, and “fiscal conservatives” - then they will fail.
And as someone pointed out on here a while back, Starmer makes it less risky for waivering disillusioned Tories to dip their toe in the anti-Tory pool, and the LDs are the shallow end. The 2000s heyday of the LD's came under Blair and Brown. Faced with the prospect of Corbyn (and arguaby Miliband) many small 'l' liberals simply voted Tory.
Southam, that's the issue now. Keir Starmer has made it strikingly clear that he's dragging Labour back to the centre-left. So once again the LibDems are in a squeeze. With Europe now dead as an issue in the electorate, there's really nothing else the LibDems stand for and no relevance. Last time this happened they disastrously (for them) went into coalition with the tories.
The situation is compounded because Boris isn't a right-winger. He's a libertarian of soft-right persuasion and an internationalist.
So there's no room on the platform for the LibDems.
Exactly the same happened with Blair, but the LDs prospered. If voters are comfortable with Labour as a party of government and if they want to kick the Tories out, the LDs will do well. As Alastair points out, almost all LD target seats are Tory held.
There's some truth in this but, again, I don't think it quite hits the spot.
The 1992-7 Major was on its knees almost before it began, something only compounded by Black Wednesday. From then on the tories were doomed to be routed at the General Election. Following that Blair landslide the tories lurched to the right - under William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. That left room for the LibDems on the platform.
The circumstances now are very different. Notwithstanding coronavirus, Boris Johnson is clearly NOT lurching to the right and he is extremely popular.
So if the LibDems are intending to gain momentum by capturing a non-existent vacancy on the soft-right, they could be waiting a very long time.
We’ll see. Post-crisis, the Tories are going to have some very big decisions to make on tax and public spending. Politically, that’s when it will become interesting. They will not be able to please everyone.
I would not be at all surprised to see the Tories bite the bullet at the end of all this and soak the middle classes.
At the end of this disaster we're going to be in a position where the state is heavily indebted and may not be able to afford to borrow any more to fund the deficit; where people with means have been forced by regulation and by necessity to get used to less lavish lifestyles; and where the public services and the NHS in particular are lionised.
Events will also be playing against a background in which the Government is being lambasted for its various failings in the handling of the epidemic, and economic suffering is widespread (and disproportionately concentrated amongst its new voters in less well-off areas.)
In short, people who have money will have to be made to cough it up. Just gunning for the super-rich won't cut it - there are too few of them and it's too easy for them to run away - and ditto for the next tier below, which includes now untouchable figures like wealthy hospital consultants. Thus I would imagine that, in broad-brush terms, everyone earning more than the median wage is going to have to pay much more tax. That should be affordable for the large slice of that income bracket that is now working from home, and finds itself magically in possession of all that extra money that was previously wasted on commuting, but it's going to cause serious hardship for a lot of families that are mortgaged to the hilt and were only just about managing before this started.
Still, if we want a more Scandiwegian social dispensation then people must finally come to terms with the fact that they have to pay for it themselves, rather than expecting other people to do all the heavy lifting. This will create both winners and losers, which is tough on the losers - but public policy always does that.
Finally, there is one important and obvious factor working in favour of the Government: no economically liberal, low-tax party sitting to the right of them, and little prospect of such a thing emerging. The Brexit Party is a busted flush and the Liberal Democrats are too left-wing in temperament to move to occupy that space.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
You might, your children and relatives would rather not see inheritance tax raised
True - but it`s not their money. people shouldn`t live their lives in expectation of an inheritance.
One of the benefits of a feckless parent is already having been long prepared for no inheritance prospects.
On topic - before going out for my officially sanction bike ride. Not quite 68km like our colleague, but I'll get up to 40 or so over the lockin period having just got back on it.
As it happens I'll be cycling past Davey's childhood home in a few minutes.
Two comments:
1 - Internal divisions - following LD Voice a little there is still a weird concept of "taint" around. People who were associated with the coalition have some sort of smell that means they cannot be touched; very playground. It is almost like the "Red Tory" trope in Corbynista circles. Is this widespread?
2 - I still do not see a way back from the LDs burning their boats with half the population.
I think I agree with others - the niche that fits may be the old 'radical' one.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
If it's going to take 8 billion quid to fix it, it needs bulldozing....
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
you can tax assets or income. that is it. incomes are going to be highly depressed for some time. you can tinker with the long needed NI/Income Tax merger and do away with all the absurdities. but to raise the huge slabs of cash needed they will have to go after assets.
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Are we going to tax public sector final salary pensions in any such windfall at their proper current actuarial value not the lower fictional sleight of hand that they’re valued at now?
public sector pensions are different, there is no 'pot'. but to keep everything 'fair' you just say all schemes now pay out at 90% what they would have done.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
To be honest, I would far prefer to see VAT abolished than IHT. It’s the most regressive, vicious, unpleasant tax going.
Just abolish IHT, but treat inheritances as taxable income. With some mechanism (such as a special account available from banks) to shelter an inheritance and take it as income spread over, say, up to ten years.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
you don't need to be old to remember you saying that the tories should spend more .......
I think we can all agree these are exceptional times
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
If it's going to take 8 billion quid to fix it, it needs bulldozing....
They're not going to properly fix it, JRM even is getting cold feet apparently. Enough to bodge it up maybe, they'll be pilloried for any non health spending or non economic support spending.. But actually my concern was youd bulldoze it even if parliament went elsewhere permanently.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Nonsense. Money goes round and round, and gets taxed as it goes. As your own post makes clear, there isn't really such a thing as "single taxation".
you can tax assets or income. that is it. incomes are going to be highly depressed for some time. you can tinker with the long needed NI/Income Tax merger and do away with all the absurdities. but to raise the huge slabs of cash needed they will have to go after assets.
The biggest two are real estate and pensions. I could see all pension reliefs being abolished, and even a windfall tax on all pension assets. We will just have to suck it up and the 6 Trillion (yes trillion) in our pension wealth takes a say 10% hit.
And then the tax nerds favourite of a land value tax.
Are we going to tax public sector final salary pensions in any such windfall at their proper current actuarial value not the lower fictional sleight of hand that they’re valued at now?
public sector pensions are different, there is no 'pot'. but to keep everything 'fair' you just say all schemes now pay out at 90% what they would have done.
Looks at what Labour did to my pension pots and mutters 90% - I wish......
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Problem is trusts. For example, a trust is set up that can pay school fees for children. That’s not income for the parent or the child.
Private schools will have gone, Charles, remember?
But seriously - since I am a pragmatist - of course people will always try and reduce their liabilities. All you can do is frame a tax as clearly as possible and enforce it as best you can.
Not a lot of happy thoughts there for me this morning, but I think our one-time lurker to be on the right track. I was Labour as a student, and early, then switched to the Liberals in the early 60's because they seemed to have a more individual yet caring approach to politics. And I liked their pro-EEC (etc) attitude, although officially it was very much the Tory line too. When the SDP come along I initially welcomed it, especially because of their pro-Europe attitude, and the influence of Roy Jenkins, although I did have some sneaking sympathy with Cyril Smith's view...... it should have been strangled at birth. In the constituency where I lived, worked and had been a prominent member of the Liberal Party we were more or less told that this was SDP territory now and they would run the show. So I started switching my vote back, at least sometimes, and was rewarded in 1997 when Labour won the seat. Admittedly I was encouraged to vote Labour then by what I saw as a need to defeat a particularly odious Conservative MP. The I moved and old loyalties weren't as strong, although I still called myself a LibDem. Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell deserved, I felt, support
However reflection on Clegg and the Coalition years have really pushed me back to Labour. I recall arguing on here that the Coalition should have ended well before the election, to ensure a difference in the public mind; it didn't and the LD's were crushed by a particularly vicious and targeted campaign by the Tories. I remember thinking after the election that it was a pity Clegg kept his seat; poor Farron had the ghost of Christmas past sitting beside him. And when there was a bit of a recovery Cable's ship had clearly sailed, Jo Swinson was out of her depth and there doesn't seem a good reason now for voting LD.
To date Starmer and his team look like hope for the country.
Up to a point. Starter is in the fortunate position of being a blank sheet of paper. A step up from the incompetent antisemitism surrounding Corbyn, but not yet defined. Soon he will have to have policies and plans, and those will start to affect support.
Could I vote Labour again? Yes I could, and Mrs Foxy is back in the party, but I shall be sticking to the Lib Dems.
“ Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, went on national TV to threaten to ban outdoor exercise if people continued to break ‘social distancing’ rules.
From a Government that claims to be preserving life and health, this threat was literally mad.
Banning exercise for any length of time will lead to the deaths and illness of many thousands of currently healthy, older people who know that such exercise is vital to their physical and mental wellbeing.
Such exercise can easily be taken while maintaining the required distance from others. The threat was a dictatorial one, of collective punishment of all for the wrongdoing of others.
This is illegal under Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. A foreign occupier would not be allowed to do it.”
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
If it's going to take 8 billion quid to fix it, it needs bulldozing....
Yeah! And while we're at it, lets encourage the French to bulldoze Notre Dame for the same reason. And I have no idea why Dresden spend so much money recreating its architectural treasures. I have no doubt the tourists will come in to have their picture taken with any old shite we build to replace them.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
How busy IS healthcare, actually? Try getting treatment from your GP right now. Thousands of operations cancelled indefinitely. A&E visits halved. And at the same time capacity to treat Coronavirus mushrooming.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
To be honest, I would far prefer to see VAT abolished than IHT. It’s the most regressive, vicious, unpleasant tax going.
Just abolish IHT, but treat inheritances as taxable income. With some mechanism (such as a special account available from banks) to shelter an inheritance and take it as income spread over, say, up to ten years.
Problem solved.
People will just start formally employing their children, purely for the lower marginal tax rate.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
If it's going to take 8 billion quid to fix it, it needs bulldozing....
Yeah! And while we're at it, lets encourage the French to bulldoze Notre Dame for the same reason. And I have no idea why Dresden spend so much money recreating its architectural treasures. I have no doubt the tourists will come in to have their picture taken with any old shite we build to replace them.
Well of course it worked with the Louvre although that was far from a complete destroy and rebuild.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
Good luck getting elected after any IHT reform, except for abolishing it.
The amounts concerned are so big that people will find any way they can to avoid it, and you end up with a system that tries to punitively tax birthday or graduation presents from children and grandchildren, paid for by income that’s already been taxed once.
When you buy a bar of chocolate, you pay VAT from income that has "already been taxed once". This is not something peculiar to IHT. You can make the same argument for almost any tax.
Tax reform may be needed but first we must start to think seriously. Mrs Thatcher's great trick was to persuade the country that only income tax matters. Most Conservatives believe theirs is the party of low taxation. They are wrong. VAT is charged at 20 per cent: it was a mere 8 per cent before the Thatcher government increased it to 15 per cent (after denying plans to double VAT which, I suppose, is technically true but does not add to politicians' reputation for veracity). Air Passenger Duty is a recent innovation, and so on. It is only last year the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer announced record tax receipts.
To be honest, I would far prefer to see VAT abolished than IHT. It’s the most regressive, vicious, unpleasant tax going.
Just abolish IHT, but treat inheritances as taxable income. With some mechanism (such as a special account available from banks) to shelter an inheritance and take it as income spread over, say, up to ten years.
Problem solved.
People will just start formally employing their children, purely for the lower marginal tax rate.
Employ family members? We will all be MP's next .......
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Bulldozing? That lovely if ramshackle building? It's not at fault for the institution it houses!
If it's going to take 8 billion quid to fix it, it needs bulldozing....
They're not going to properly fix it, JRM even is getting cold feet apparently. Enough to bodge it up maybe, they'll be pilloried for any non health spending or non economic support spending.. But actually my concern was youd bulldoze it even if parliament went elsewhere permanently.
OK, OK. I'll hold fire on the bulldozer. The fabric of the building can stay. The rest moves North!
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
the economy is based on consumption. i think it was Adam Smith he pointed out growth came from fripperies. or something like that. Turning off consumption has/will totally crater the world economy.
In my Coronavirus novel, it was bio-engineered by some Extinction Rebellion boffins. The current world looks exactly as they wish.
Off topic, the comments on this thread are probably the most on-topic that I can recall for an article about a niche issue in years. Well done, Alastair.
On topic, as others have pointed out, the LibDems were not doing badly in the polls in the summer and autumn of last year. But Swinson's revoke policy, and her idiotic decision to back a general election which was obviously more likely to result in a Parliament that would get Brexit done than the previous mess, doomed them to a very disappointing result.
Going forward, and looking beyond the judgement of an individual leader, their fortunes will I think be determined by what happens to the Conservatives. Even more than Labour, they have to hope the government screws up somehow.
None of the other three strategies seem hopeful:
- They won't break through against Labour - even under Corbyn, they couldn't. - Trying to win target constituencies one by one is a grind, much more suited to council elections than general elections, when the media's attention and that of most voters is focused on national issues - As for finding a single issue to develop a unique approach to, I doubt they will ever have a more promising on than Brexit and that didn't work. If they develop a popular position on a major issue, one of the other parties are likely to nick it.
The only time they have achieved major gains in the last two decades has been when the Conservatives were at the bottom of their unpopularity in the last few years of the last century. They have to hope that history repeats itself. Of course, the danger then is that when the Conservatives recover, they will lose those seats.
But the road for a third national party in a FPTP electoral system will always be hard.
I've said before, the LibDems should cease to have aspirations to be a party of nationl Government. They should row back to being what they are good at - a party of local government. That is their core skill. It doesn't require any suspension of disbelief to say "we will gain a majority on your local council and when we do, we'll make your life better on a local level."
If that then turns into MPs, result. Maybe they will again get a chance to be kingmakers. More likely is that they will have a voice to change local government. No shame in having that as your level of aspiration. There was shame in having Swinson saying she was the candidate for being your PM....no luv, you never were.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
‘We always had a lot of swords on the table in the Sudan. We always gave those [REDACTED] a fair trial before we shot them.’
Yes, well I'm relieved you censored that. Corporal Jones was not the most enlightened of characters. Behind that comedic mask lurked something decidedly murky.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Why is that needed? What about being in the 21st century means the harmless trappings must be erased along with the harmful ones? Do purpose built new parliaments not have issues with their political cultures?
The problems of our parliamentary processes being ascribed to its visuals and some operational procedures is rather overblown, a new building would not magically make the culture or the politics 'fit for the 21st century'. Which (along with its variants) is anyway a meaningless phrase.
I get the cost argument about Westminster and j get thinking there are elements of its procedures and styles which are archaic and could be improved. But I've never understood why actually pretty trivial elements or ceremonial ones relating to our history being junked would vastly improve things. Its treated as an end in itself.
I'm not sure I follow that putting the House of Commons somewhere other than London changes anything.
There are numerous reasons why London tends to often benefit from government policy in this country. The fact that it is the seat of government is only one of many.
It all sounds mighty fine to say that MPs should be moved to Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Sheffield, but if you're not changing the MPs, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. It's a fig leaf.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
They tried that at Holyrood...
How did that work out?
It's not my fault the Scots can't organise a piss up in a distillery. Obviously there are "lessons to be learned".
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
‘We always had a lot of swords on the table in the Sudan. We always gave those [REDACTED] a fair trial before we shot them.’
Yes, well I'm relieved you censored that. Corporal Jones was not the most enlightened of characters. Behind that comedic mask lurked something decidedly murky.
Clive Dunn (who was well to the left of you) commented that he quite consciously played Jones as a very coarse, brutal and stupid character, because he saw that as typical of a British Army NCO of that era.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
Why shouldn`t it? Most tax is on money already taxed.
Because I am being taxed for saving. You should be encouraging saving.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
It wasn’t a “policy” just a statement of fact - we are printing money to handle this situation. We should stop as soon as possible.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
Original ventilator capacity was 22. 25 of 32 now in use. No further expansion possible due to gas flow capacity maxed out.
And yet Contrarian says it's all quiet.
All other hospital operations are exceedingly quiet SURPRISE!!
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
But otherwise he got off Scott free.
Karma came though; he developed Parkinson very early. Friend of mine used to dispense his medication and said he was a shadow of what he had been.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
And a NHS doctor tells me we are not at peak yet......
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
But otherwise he got off Scott free.
Karma came though; he developed Parkinson very early. Friend of mine used to dispense his medication and said he was a shadow of what he had been.
He volunteered to try monkey gland injections as a treatment iirc
@Charles it seems that the PM will be hors de combat for several weeks. You said he would recuse himself if he was going to be out for six months.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
I’m not sure what your point is.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
And a NHS doctor tells me we are not at peak yet......
I think next week we hopefully reach peak.
If it Carrys on growing after that we are screwed. I think we will sqweak through hopefully thanks to the extra capacity which is the major triumph of the Government/NHS who deserve great praise for that.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
All I see is someone living up to their user name.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
Instead of taxing inheritance, wealth should be taxed.
It won’t be, of course, because the oldies who vote would scream blue murder.
What counts as wealth? Due to a very negative outlook on the economy and house prices, I've remained living at home with my parents. I have 11 years of savings - should they be taxed?
Those savings are being depleted by that policy of Charles: printing money ala Venezuela to pay for everything.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
you don't need to be old to remember you saying that the tories should spend more .......
I think we can all agree these are exceptional times
I have never advocated borrowing or printing money though. I am happy for more government spending in certain areas, but from tax, not borrowing.
Where to go from here? The Liberal seats are lost and won't come back. It was a fine historical tradition that can't be rebuilt unless the party beats itself into such a different shape to be beyond recognition. I personally mourn this as I think it's a voice which still needs to be heard. The SDP seats seem more promising but I suspect they're going to get a lot more crowded with the rise of Sir Kier. I think the answer lies in abandoning any pretence at a national campaign and picking two dozen seats with an unpopular local MP or a hospital that needs saving and ruthlessly targeting them. Add in a few freak results from paper candidates and you'd have a slightly improved base in which to rebuild
This was basically Jeremy Thorpe's "Winnable Seats" strategy wasn't it? Which worked quite well. At least until he went a bit murdery.
Yes, that character trait did dog him
But otherwise he got off Scott free.
Karma came though; he developed Parkinson very early. Friend of mine used to dispense his medication and said he was a shadow of what he had been.
He volunteered to try monkey gland injections as a treatment iirc
He certainly offered himself as a trial for something 'far out'.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
All I see is someone living up to their user name.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
er no...most people are praying they don;t get ill with something that ain't Coronavirus because the chances of getting treated are precisely zip.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
It is rather difficult to get patients to turn up at my diabetic clinic at present. I cannot think why...
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
7 of 32 ventilators spare at CRH. A week ago only 7 were in use by c19 patients
And a NHS doctor tells me we are not at peak yet......
I think next week we hopefully reach peak.
If it Carrys on growing after that we are screwed. I think we will sqweak through hopefully thanks to the extra capacity which is the major triumph of the Government/NHS who deserve great praise for that.
I hope he is wrong, but what he said before turned out to be correct - If he is right there is a fair amount of pain still to come.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
Have to say I agree with Nichomar, time to clean out the byre and get parliament out of the 18th century, it is not fit for purpose. It will be a herculean job to get them to give up the privileges and power and gold trimmings but long overdue that it was done. Unfortunately it suits both Tories and Labour just fine so highly unlikely.
Not just the privilege and gold trimmings, Malc. The whole site wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Brilliant plan - junk centuries of history, political culture, and world-renowned architecture in the name of a Year Zero blank slate of glass, steel, and concrete. I'm afraid the revolution was postponed indefinitely last December, comrade
It's what is needed. Get it into the 21st century. Bin the bars, the restaurants, the wigs, the whole fecking lot. Start again in the Midlands or up north. It' s not a revolution, it's evolution.
Exactly , it is just a big heavily subsidised club where these pigs swill back food and drink at cheap rates a few days a week , whilst pocketing big salaries, huge expenses and gold plated pensions.
The whole site [Westminster] wants bulldozing into the Thames. At a pinch, I'd let them flog it off to JK Rowling to turn into Harry Potter World. Get rid of it and start again somewhere else, purpose built.
Does it need a building at all? As this forum shows, you can have debates online.
Perhaps we need a virtual Parliament located in cyberspace (I think this is near Peterborough).
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
All I see is someone living up to their user name.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
er no...most people are praying they don;t get ill with something that ain't Coronavirus because the chances of getting treated are precisely zip.
You have an actual doctor pointing out your talking crap, yet you persist.
I sense that he knows this. I sense there are those in the cabinet, appalled by the mounting problems we face, that are grasping it too.
I don't think the lockdown will hold for another month. My mother's bridge club has started meeting again in secret like a communist cell in 1920s Berlin.
They could sit 2m apart I assume
And wear masks. Although, if they have all been locked down for three weeks plus, the reality is they are all perfectly safe as it is.
But will they take the opportunity to revolutionize how parliament works, bring it into the 21st century, break down the archaic and meaningless traditions and realize Westminster s not fit for purpose? I doubt it, too many of them benefit from how it is now. Shame the uk could become a modern democracy with its parliament fit for purpose.
The country is fighting a destructive and vile virus with people dying and many suffering and you think now is the time for a revolution in how parliament organises itself
We are going to have to make a big change immediately because of the virus.
Big change has come already - the difficult bit is getting the economy working again.
Keeping everyone at home more than another month is madness.
The government didn`t expect lockdown to be so well-observed. And it didn`t expect so many people to cease work. It`s instruction was to carry on working, at home wherever possible. This has led to a higher bail-out cost to the treasury than was expected.
It also brings forward another knotty problem which is on the horizon: what happens when lockdown is eased and some people say they don`t want to return to work? These people - sadly - will want and expect further bail-out money and will try to guilt-trip the government into paying it, no doubt with the support of some of the media. This argument will be strengthened the longer lockdown continues.
Furthermore, the government will be savvy of the geopolitical risks around other countries coming out of lockdown earlier than us and gaining a competitive advantage.
Given all of this, the government will want lockdown eased - probably gradually in some way - as soon as possible. They have already commenced research about the harm created by lockdown, financial and psychological, and will use this as "cover" to justify the easing.
Some excellent points here. I suspect Sunak is starting to cotton on to this. The numbers are gargantuan,
Sunak has tried to graft a command economy onto a country he cannot actually command. A free democratic country. The results are, well, disastrous does not describe it.
Its a policy failure of such epic proportions there are barely words to frame it I sense he is starting to realise this as the figures start to come in.
A scary prospect. I cannot even fathom the options available, what might have been a better policy decision? Or was there no way to mitigate effectively?
The only option available is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Like yesterday.
Every other option turns us into Argentina. For good.
Healthcare is very busy - but not overwhelmed.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
What is a limited return to normal?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS top cope with more covid?
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Yet other places are very busy
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
No I'm simply asking for the numbers on what the headroom is. We aren;t being told, because that might inform a decision to relax a litle.
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
All I see is someone living up to their user name.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
That's a key point - everyone who takes a trip to hospital today is doing so only because they absolutely _have_ to, due to fear of catching CV.
Of course demand for normal services looks low right now, but that's because it's being suppressed by an unprecedented factor.
This thread demonstrates clearly an enormous problem. Whatever suggestion is made for ways to raise Government revenues via taxation there will be lots of people crying foul. It's not fair. How do you define wealthy? It will discourage this, it will penalize that. People will just avoid it. People will flee for Bermuda. Etc.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Someone above said they couldn’t figure out what the Lib Dems are for.
Simply, Labour is for more equality The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
That's perhaps what they should for. What they seem to be for is Europe and transsexuals. Which is ground the Labour Party often seemz keen to cover.
I'm not sure I follow that putting the House of Commons somewhere other than London changes anything.
There are numerous reasons why London tends to often benefit from government policy in this country. The fact that it is the seat of government is only one of many.
It all sounds mighty fine to say that MPs should be moved to Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Sheffield, but if you're not changing the MPs, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. It's a fig leaf.
Different environment, new standards, a professional approach to the job. No longer the best club inLondon reduce the ridiculous confrontation, reflect that the political scene is not binary. It wouldn’t produce good drama but it couldn’t fail to improve its reputation and outputs.
Foxy made a good point this morning, that there will sadly be a lot of cash prematurely going to the younger generation. Perhaps IHT needs looking at fast? I`ve never understood people`s aversion to this tax (second most unpopular after council tax). IHT is my favourite tax. I`d much rather pay tax when I`m dead than when I`m alive.
I'm also an IHT fan, but I have no heirs so I could reasonably be accused of having no skin in that particular game!
Resistance to IHT is the ultimate validation of Thatcher's infamous "no such thing as society" comment, rooted as it is in biology. People (or a very great proportion of people, at any rate) resent the state - i.e. unrelated strangers - getting their hands on their resources when they kick the bucket. They want their own offspring to have it all.
It’s double taxation though.
The government taxes my income. It taxes my spending. Why should it get to take a further chunk just because I die?
And if you pay your income taxed income to your gardener as wages, he pays income tax on it. Harsh but that's how it works. Double taxation is only an objection when money is taxed twice *for what is effectively the same transaction,* like charging corporation tax on profits and then taxing dividends as income.
If I save £100 and then ownership of that £100 transfers to my daughter there is no “transaction”.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.
Comments
Well, to provide a home for people who are idologically liberal, the second most common ideology held (after conservatism). It`s that simple. The LibDems shouldn`t have lost their way. But they have.
And it's not just about whether a lockdown will continue to be observed either. Ultimately the economy will be devastated to an extent that the Government will have to feed us all, and it is neither prepared to, nor capable of, doing that. I think the furlough scheme will have to be ended after 12-weeks. It is easy to support as a vital stop gap but at some point it will become an incentive not to work.
If you tax the savings of those who've chosen to spend rather than save but don't have high income then you're wiping out years of hard work.
I do acknowledge that you'd be hit from both sides by such a switch, but would hazard a guess that both your income and your assets are such that you'd be able to bear either taxation approach without any actual difficulty.
I am old enough to remember when Tories advocated living within our means...
But that's no different to the last decade, which is why we have such a disparity between those who own a house and those who don't.
We should print money and hike up interest rates at the same time.
It might not be six months. All is good in your world with a stand-in PM apparently not making any decisions until further notice right now?
On topic - before going out for my officially sanction bike ride. Not quite 68km like our colleague, but I'll get up to 40 or so over the lockin period having just got
back on it.
As it happens I'll be cycling past Davey's childhood home in a few minutes.
Two comments:
1 - Internal divisions - following LD Voice a little there is still a weird concept of "taint" around. People who were associated with the coalition have some sort of smell that means they cannot be touched; very playground. It is almost like the "Red Tory" trope in Corbynista circles. Is this widespread?
2 - I still do not see a way back from the LDs burning their boats with half the population.
I think I agree with others - the niche that fits may be the old 'radical' one.
The lockdown won’t stop Covid - we may as well have a limited return to normal .
Problem solved.
That would destroy far more lives in our country than Coronavirus ever could.
I think we can all agree these are exceptional times
But seriously - since I am a pragmatist - of course people will always try and reduce their liabilities. All you can do is frame a tax as clearly as possible and enforce it as best you can.
Could I vote Labour again? Yes I could, and Mrs Foxy is back in the party, but I shall be sticking to the Lib Dems.
Tabloid debate
How much spare capacity is there in the NHS to cope with more covid right now?
It's not as if the hospitals are swimming in PPE or necessary medications right now is it?
How did that work out?
The emergency stock is all but gone and they are only available from 1 country in the whole world apparently.
In my Coronavirus novel, it was bio-engineered by some Extinction Rebellion boffins. The current world looks exactly as they wish.
If that then turns into MPs, result. Maybe they will again get a chance to be kingmakers. More likely is that they will have a voice to change local government. No shame in having that as your level of aspiration. There was shame in having Swinson saying she was the candidate for being your PM....no luv, you never were.
Literally, the trillion pound question.
And that is why they are desperate not to actually tell you. Nobody knows. We were told lockdown was to build in capacity. There is anecdotal evidence that tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Evidence? numbers? there are none.
The problems of our parliamentary processes being ascribed to its visuals and some operational procedures is rather overblown, a new building would not magically make the culture or the politics 'fit for the 21st century'. Which (along with its variants) is anyway a meaningless phrase.
I get the cost argument about Westminster and j get thinking there are elements of its procedures and styles which are archaic and could be improved. But I've never understood why actually pretty trivial elements or ceremonial ones relating to our history being junked would vastly improve things. Its treated as an end in itself.
There are numerous reasons why London tends to often benefit from government policy in this country. The fact that it is the seat of government is only one of many.
It all sounds mighty fine to say that MPs should be moved to Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Sheffield, but if you're not changing the MPs, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes. It's a fig leaf.
Fancy crashing the system to see if you are right?
And yet Contrarian says it's all quiet.
All other hospital operations are exceedingly quiet SURPRISE!!
People argue Coronavirus has put a a strain on the NHS, but actually it has put it in a comfort zone.
A zone where it no longer has to live up to its responsibilities to treat people for ailments and diseases, because Coronavirus innit.
If it emerges the NHS now has the capacity to treat an enormous spike in Coronavirus, then people will wonder why they can;t go back to seeing their GP again, or getting their routine operation.
As I say, we aren;t being told.
Cabinet is and remains the decision making body for the executive. It may be a little harder for Raab to force through decisions based on his personal authority. Is that a bad thing? If we get factions developing then it’s a problem but I don’t see it being a problem at the moment. Do you?
Simply,
Labour is for more equality
The Conservatives are for protecting wealth.
The Lib Dems were for / should for liberty - and the liberty to indulge your own interests, and - among other things, earn a living. That means being pro the “little person” and against vested interests.
If it Carrys on growing after that we are screwed. I think we will sqweak through hopefully thanks to the extra capacity which is the major triumph of the Government/NHS who deserve great praise for that.
Most people will be avoiding hospitals as much as they can right now
Also - can I suggest you look at videos of health staff from around the world begging for people to stay inside and count the numbers of them dying whilst working trying to keep the rest of us alive.
Perhaps we need a virtual Parliament located in cyberspace (I think this is near Peterborough).
Of course demand for normal services looks low right now, but that's because it's being suppressed by an unprecedented factor.
Trouble is, the finances are screwed and unless we plan to give up on the notion of a welfare state and public services, taxes are going to have to rise very significantly. We cannot live beyond our means ad infinitum. There is no magic money tree. Sure, we can keep borrowing it and printing it for a while, but sooner or later - probably sooner - the bill will be presented.
Tax works best on the basis of governments receiving a share of the increase in value from someone’s efforts. Otherwise there is no incentive to build capital and wealth.