Day 41 of the Truss premiership and some terrible front pages – politicalbetting.com

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is an off the wall suggestion

A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.

The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury
The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices
Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher

Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.

Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.

If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers

But it might not since cash purchasers (who form the majority of BTL landlords and other property "investors" last time I saw) would evade the tax. Also those who've paid off their mortgage wouldn't be paying the tax or incentivised to downsize or not hold multiple properties.

Taxes should be simple but consistent, if you're going to tax land then tax land, don't tax mortgages.

paulyork64 said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the
calamity of her first month in office!

You’ve changed

Truss is a libertarian not a Tory who is trashing the party and leading it sleepwalking to its worst defeat since 1832 on current polls.

She has until the local elections to turn it round or she is gone

Why should it be the poor local councillors who have to be stuck with the fork to tell us what we all know

"Yep, she's done...."

Get rid before Christmas, start the New Year as afresh as this parliamentary party can muster.

Boris and May only went after poor local election results in May 2019 and May 2022 respectively, Truss will likely be the same

Come on. Boris and May did not go because of poor local election results.

That was the catalyst

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is an off the wall suggestion

A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.

The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury
The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices
Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher

Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.

Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.

If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers

The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.

As discussed on here before the solutions are:

Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra
LVT to replace council tax
Reduce housing benefit substantially
Remove govt props that support the market
Build more homes

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?

Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident

I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.

Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.

The higher debt interest bills, twice what the OBR expected in March, are extraordinarily politically painful because they buy nothing: no new police officers, doctors or hospitals https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kwasi-vs-the-markets

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".

As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.

Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.

...

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".

As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.

Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.

Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.

I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.

If Truss can get the Tory share in the polls back up to 30% she's probably safe in the medium-term, which might happen over the next couple of months. Of course that's why everyone who wants to get rid of her wants to do it as quickly as possible, in case her position does recover slightly.

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.

It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.

That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.

Scott_xP said:

The higher debt interest bills, twice what the OBR expected in March, are extraordinarily politically painful because they buy nothing: no new police officers, doctors or hospitals https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kwasi-vs-the-markets

Which brings us back to a question not really being asked in the papers.

Even if we were going to do the Kamikwaze budget, seeing as it mostly applies from April, why not announce it in April rather than September and have an extra seven months of lower government debt, and lower mortgage costs for homeowners?

Who knows, maybe by April the Ukraine war might have ended and some of the Kamikwaze stuff would have been affordable by then?

Just incredulous stupidity.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?

Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident

It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".

As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.

Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.

Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.

I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.

For a libertarian that is inconsistent- Most libertarians would not want the state to decide (or risk it ) when they die

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?

Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident

I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.

Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.

You’re a pathetic coward. A fucking appeaser

We should say to Putin that if he moves a single division to a NATO border we will nuke Moscow and destroy St Petersburg. No, if he moves a single battalion

No, if another Russian soldier moves more than ten metres

No. If just one rifle is aimed west

No, if Putin does a single poo west of Moscow that’s it. Nukes. No more restrooms in Smolensk for you, Vladimir. We’ve got captain @BartholomewRoberts manning the red button, and if you do a single jobby this side of the Urals we bravely flush you down the Khazi of history even tho it means everyone in the world immediately dies in frantic and fiery agony

Selebian said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again

As we were before we Brexited.

Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.

The People made their decision.

Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.

Perverse logic.

If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?

No, because they only got the vote with the agreement of the UK government. Scotland had no legal route to unilaterally leaving the UK, without UK consent, so was not sovereign (and the same still applies). The UK was able to unilaterally leave the EU with no one else's permission, so it was sovereign.

ETA: But it's somewhat semantics anyway. We pooled sovereignty in the EU and it's fair enough to object to that.

As I said other countries explicitly grant parts of their own country the right to secede if they vote to do so, just as the EU does, its not unprecedented. As per your ETA if we pooled sovereignty in the EU then we clearly weren't fully sovereign, just as Nevis and New Caledonia aren't fully sovereign even though they have the right to become so just as we did. We had more sovereignty than them, but we weren't fully sovereign and now we are.

Its fair to claim that pooling sovereignty was a good idea, because it was more beneficial than being fully sovereign if that's what you believe.

Andy_JS said:

If Truss can get the Tory share in the polls back up to 30% she's probably safe in the medium-term, which might happen over the next couple of months. Of course that's why everyone who wants to get rid of her wants to do it as quickly as possible, in case her position does recover slightly.

Not at all, I simply want her gone in 2022 because of my Betfair book.......

noneoftheabove said:

Which brings us back to a question not really being asked in the papers.

Even if we were going to do the Kamikwaze budget, seeing as it mostly applies from April, why not announce it in April rather than September and have an extra seven months of lower government debt, and lower mortgage costs for homeowners?

Who knows, maybe by April the Ukraine war might have ended and some of the Kamikwaze stuff would have been affordable by then?

Just incredulous stupidity.

Arrogance.

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stereodog said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

You're the chump who can't understand the meaning of the word "deterrence".

As long as the war doesn't escalate to WMDs then we will not get directly involved, that is our red line, as it should. If it does, then we absolutely should and must.

Actually you’re a chump who doesn’t understand why tactical nukes were invented in the first place. The whole idea is to provide a military option which falls short of all out nuclear war but levels the conventional playing field. Back in the day NATO were keen on them because they could never hope to defeat an all out invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets conventionally. In my opinion that is a highly dangerous doctrine as it would probably lead to escalation but to threaten to immediately fire our strategic nukes as soon as a tactical nuke is just suicidal.

Deterrence has succeeded in avoiding nuclear escalation for over three quarters of a century.

I won't reject that for the usual suspects here wanting to be apologists for Putin's aggression.

For a libertarian that is inconsistent- Most libertarians would not want the state to decide (or risk it ) when they die

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, there is a role for the state and matters of war and self-defence are in my eyes self-evidently part of that.

Preventing nuclear escalation via deterrence is a legitimate role for the state.

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Have you done your Covid test? If so what was the result?

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is an off the wall suggestion

A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.

The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury
The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices
Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher

Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.

Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.

If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers

The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.

As discussed on here before the solutions are:

Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra
LVT to replace council tax
Reduce housing benefit substantially
Remove govt props that support the market
Build more homes

“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.

Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.

Kind of. Build more homes obviously comes with a time lag, so it will take longest to have an impact. The others can be much quicker, some very quickly. They all need to be done.

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is an off the wall suggestion

A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.

The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury
The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices
Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher

Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.

Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.

If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers

The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.

As discussed on here before the solutions are:

Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra
LVT to replace council tax
Reduce housing benefit substantially
Remove govt props that support the market
Build more homes

“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.

Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.

In addition people have been saying the year on year rise is unsustainable and the market will self correct for the last 25 years...yet to happen and yes partly because politicians keep interfering to keep the spiral going

Scott_xP said:

...

Wonder which book she took.

MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position.
#backliz
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584

kjh said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kjh said:

Sandpit said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1580264025648431105

I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.

There is no need for it.

People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.

Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.

I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!

I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?

Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch

Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy

A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words

'elected'?

She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again

As we were before we Brexited.

Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.

The People made their decision.

Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.

Perverse logic.

If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?

Not the same thing at all.

If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.

When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.

So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.

We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.

Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.

Scott_xP said:

MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position.
#backliz
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584

Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Pagan2 said:

Here is an off the wall suggestion

A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.

The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury
The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices
Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher

Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.

Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.

If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers

The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.

As discussed on here before the solutions are:

Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra
LVT to replace council tax
Reduce housing benefit substantially
Remove govt props that support the market
Build more homes

“Build more homes” needs to be the starting point. Every solution requires building more homes.

Anyone suggesting immigration as a solution to labour shortages, needs to be clear that more homes are required first.

Kind of. Build more homes obviously comes with a time lag, so it will take longest to have an impact. The others can be much quicker, some very quickly. They all need to be done.

Building houses can be fast, it’s the planning and bureaucracy that takes the time.

You can now buy a 3-bed house in a dozen containers, delivered by lorry to your site for less than £100k. What’s required, is for it to be easy to get planning permission for these, and for banks to give 20-year loans on them.

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Okay, enlighten me.

If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?

Stuartinromford said:

Scott_xP said:

MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position.
#backliz
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584

Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?

Subtle, isn't she?

Stuartinromford said:

Scott_xP said:

MPs circulating a smorgasboard of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position.
#backliz
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1580507233917763584

Tell us Nadine, do you have an answer to that mindbender? Someone who isn't Liz Truss but can claim that the public voted for them?

It's very cryptic but "smorgasboard" could be a clue she's thinking of someone blond.

Northern_Al said:

Driver said:

Scott_xP said:

Which of the following do you think would make the best prime minister? (11-12 Oct)

Keir Starmer: 42% (-1 from 6-7 Oct)
Liz Truss: 13% (-1)
Not sure: 41% (+2)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/13/voting-intention-con-23-lab-51-11-12-oct-2022 https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1580496391985459201/photo/1

Even now, Sir Keir is barely struggling to beat "not sure" (which, of course, means "neither"). Time for him to start telling us what he would do.

Yes, Starmer's in real trouble isn't he, especially compared to Truss? At least Truss has told us what she'd do. However....

Well, if all he cares about is winning the election, then he's doing enough by default.

It won't help him actually do anything about the problems the country faces, though!

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?

Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident

I would prevent Putin from using a tactical nuke in Ukraine by making it clear we would treat that as a nuke on London, yes, in honour of our prior commitments we made to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes.

Putin and his generals should then be deterred from escalating to nuclear force.

I have some sympathy with your argument, but I think the problem is that a promise to nuke Moscow in retaliation for Russia using a nuke on a Ukrainian trench in rural Donetsk lacks a certain credibility when Britain hasn't yet been willing to commit its own soldiers, tanks and fighter jets to the war.

If I was Putin I wouldn't take such a threat of nuclear deterrence seriously while British tanks were parading in Poland and Estonia, rather than joining a Ukrainian attempt to liberate Melitopol.

So I think that the threat of a conventional response, sinking the Black Sea fleet, destroying airbases, etc, is more credible, and therefore more likely to act as a deterrent.

A rushed clarification from Macron:

@EmmanuelMacron
We do not want a World War.

@EmmanuelMacron
We are helping Ukraine to resist on its soil, never to attack Russia. Vladimir Putin must stop this war and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

https://www.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1580505003714048001

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Okay, enlighten me.

If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?

Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway

It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war

But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward

The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.

We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.

And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.

I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.

Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.

As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.

If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.

Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.

Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.

It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.

That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.

I’m hoping that I’m south enough to avoid all that radioactive fallout sh!t

Leon said:

The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite

It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss

Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely

Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s

It's a fantastic construct you've made for yourself. 'We have sovereignty therefore Brexit can never be wrong, and I, Leon, can always proclaim I was right to vote Leave.'

You can airily wave away all the damage it has caused and is continuing to cause, all the unfilled promises that swung God knows how many votes that the government has abandoned one by one since 2016, by burbling on about sovereignty.

I don't really care, and I suspect most people including the vast majority of Leave voters other than the real hardcore, cared about sovereignty, how much of it was shared, all that jazz, before the referendum campaign. It was boring political theory. Cummings - I assume it was he but whoever it was - their malign genius was to make sovereignty a synonym for whatever your pet concern was. Borders? Sovereignty. Red tape? Sovereignty. A trade deal with the US? Sovereignty. Ensuring any French made cars are dumped in the Channel? Sovereignty. (Someone told my Dad they voted Leave because they hate Peugeot cars. Seriously. Still astounds me. I know someone who voted Leave, after fully expecting to vote Remain, cos they didn't like George Osborne's apocalyptic warnings about economic meltdown. Cheers George.)

It's genius really. Like 'Take Back Control' - you can make it mean whatever you want it to. It can never be rebutted. Because even if the Union crumbles, even if we continue to have massive labour shortages, even if we're all hunting rats, none of it matters. Cos sovereignty.

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Okay, enlighten me.

If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?

Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway

It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing

Which is exactly why the old drugs should be legal.

Leon said:

The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite

It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss

Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely

Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s

Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.

JRM opposes ban on farmland solar. How is it possible that he's turned into a more reasonable cabinet minister. Truss is a moron.

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite

It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss

Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely

Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s

Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.

Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again

Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Liz Truss and Kwasi Karteng have had a crash course over the last few weeks on the limits of our 'sovereignty'.

They can't even sack Bailey now.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

"Joe Biden is too timid. It is time to legalise cocaine
The costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits"

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/12/joe-biden-is-too-timid-it-is-time-to-legalise-cocaine

That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.

Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.

Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl

Okay, enlighten me.

If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?

Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway

It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing

That's all the more reason to legalise.

Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.

Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.

Just on the issue of Moonshine, there is a problem with this in Scandinavian countries, it is hard and expensive to get alcohol, so people brew their own. Not sure how much this goes on but I have seen it. It would probably be the same with drugs. I don't oppose legalising them but it won't stop the black market for stronger and cheaper stuff, so regulating it may not result in an overall improvement in product standards.

noneoftheabove said:

edmundintokyo said:

Have we had a thread on why the LibDems don't seem to be benefiting from the trussterfuck?

More interesting that REFUK are not benefitting either.

She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.

When did you last see the leader of either Lib Dems or REFUK interviewed on a major TV channel or or in a major newspaper? And Davey as a former Energy Secretary presumably has something to say.

Scott_xP said:

Editor of @conhome, @PaulGoodmanCH, suggests a Mordaunt/Sunak ticket, with Mordaunt as PM https://conservativehome.com/2022/10/12/its-now-more-likely-than-not-that-the-mini-budget-will-be-withdrawn-and-that-the-chancellor-may-have-to-go/ https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1580511092932956162/photo/1

Someone's been reading my posts!

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4165367#Comment_4165367

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4165486#Comment_4165486

kinabalu said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Liz Truss and Kwasi Karteng have had a crash course over the last few weeks on the limits of our 'sovereignty'.

They can't even sack Bailey now.

Wasn’t Bailey appointed in part that he was a believer in Brexit ?

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite

It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss

Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely

Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s

Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.

Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again

Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.

Trolling is designed to elicit a pointless response. Which this did. You responded. QED

Once again I have very very very very slightly worsened the life of a pompous, inane, and middlebrow Remoaner, an achievement which gives me more pleasure than it ought

“I’ll have you know I am a qualified lawyer”

Lol

This is why Penny is needed! Also, Labour need to be very careful as Thangam Debbonaire looks positively gleeful about the state of the UK financial situation.

During #PMQs yesterday, "the Leader of the House couldn't even muster a nod for her prime minister", Shadow Leader of the House Thangam Debbonaire says

"My resting face is that of a bulldog chewing a wasp," says Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt

bbc.in/3esZUkM
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1580514243681607680

Sandpit said:

As an expat, the sort of thing that says “why the f*** would I want to live in modern Britain?”

Which council employee thought this was a legitimate ticket?



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11310931/Driver-pulled-bus-lane-let-ambulance-pass-fined-130-causing-backlash-Brits.html

Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).