Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?
Explain how it would be profitable when the capital investment required will be something like £100bn, the debt interest alone will be £4.5bn per year to clear, there's absolutely no way a project like this will ever be profitable unless the government is willing to take a gigantic loss on the capital with at least 80% of the debt being transferred from the line to the taxpayer.
Unless the cost of investment is radically altered I don't ever see big projects like these are being feasible.
Yes, there is demand at a price. That's the bit that gets forgotten.
If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.
Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...
As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.
At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.
That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.
One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.
Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.
[Am I sounding more like Gordon Brown or Nigel or Sir Keir?]
In 2021-22, 2.1 million households reported having at least one second property. Most of these households let their second property out in the private rented sector, though just over a third (712,000 households) used their property as a second home (Live Table FA2601).
The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic. It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).
Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.
The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.
This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.
Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.
To where?
The problem is not centralisation. The problem is rules without regard for ends.
The desired ends for housing include
1) lower prices 2) increased fire safety 3) reduction in carbon emissions.
The latest rules demand no a/c if possible. Which makes sense with old style a/c. And ‘leccy made from coal.
If you have no a/c, you need multiple aspects (think windows pointing different directions) in all apartments in a building to get natural airflow.
This only helps up to about 25c. Beyond that, people with compromised respiratory system are at risk.
In addition, the requirement for every apartment to be on a corner (as it were) fights against fire safety - where a simple corridor with a stairwell/lift at each end is the best design.
Further, the values used for windows are out of date - leading to specifying small windows to handle the heat/cooling loads passively.
With modern air/air heat pumps, you can heat or cool the air in an apartment efficiently. And the leccy comes, increasingly, from zero carbon sources.
So instead of complicated designs with reduced density, we could have simpler layouts, with better fire safety and cheaper to build.
What angers me is that they need to be matched with at least equivalent cuts in public spending so that a real and meaningful dent can be made in our scary deficits. When I hear nonsense like removing the 2 child cap after the WFA for millionaires, the rejection of the cuts on disability benefits and the bottomless pit of the NHS to pay ever higher wages with consequential pension liabilities I....am disappointed.
If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.
Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...
As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.
At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.
That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.
One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.
Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.
[Am I sounding more like Gordon Brown or Nigel or Sir Keir?]
In 2021-22, 2.1 million households reported having at least one second property. Most of these households let their second property out in the private rented sector, though just over a third (712,000 households) used their property as a second home (Live Table FA2601).
The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic. It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).
Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.
The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.
This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.
Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.
To where?
The problem is not centralisation. The problem is rules without regard for ends.
The desired ends for housing include
1) lower prices 2) increased fire safety 3) reduction in carbon emissions.
The latest rules demand no a/c if possible. Which makes sense with old style a/c. And ‘leccy made from coal.
If you have no a/c, you need multiple aspects (think windows pointing different directions) in all apartments in a building to get natural airflow.
This only helps up to about 25c. Beyond that, people with compromised respiratory system are at risk.
In addition, the requirement for every apartment to be on a corner (as it were) fights against fire safety - where a simple corridor with a stairwell/lift at each end is the best design.
Further, the values used for windows are out of date - leading to specifying small windows to handle the heat/cooling loads passively.
With modern air/air heat pumps, you can heat or cool the air in an apartment efficiently. And the leccy comes, increasingly, from zero carbon sources.
So instead of complicated designs with reduced density, we could have simpler layouts, with better fire safety and cheaper to build.
Strangely, when you look around Europe…
Strongly endorse all of that. It's frankly pathetic that the government has yet to do anything about is, as Labour's own think tanks are among those pointing out much of the above.
Another Rayner fail.
And again frankly, she should have contented herself with being a high ranking totem like Prescott.
If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.
Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...
As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.
At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.
That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.
One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.
Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.
[Am I sounding more like Gordon Brown or Nigel or Sir Keir?]
In 2021-22, 2.1 million households reported having at least one second property. Most of these households let their second property out in the private rented sector, though just over a third (712,000 households) used their property as a second home (Live Table FA2601).
Totally o/t I know, but I've just had yet another call from "my local energy advisor"! How many of these people are there, and what is defined as local?
For the record, my usual reply, especially when I'm in a good mood, is 'Thanks but I'm quite happy.' When I'm in a bad bad I';m tempted to say ...... off, but I don't use that sort of language.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities. It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!
Consequence would be fewer people would sell.
Base cost 20 Sale price 120 Capital gain of 100 Tax of 25 Available capital of 20 + (100-25) =95
Consequence: next house is smaller or in a less nice area
I have made a real howler when it comes to Capital Gains Tax - I bought a flat in 2002 and lived in it sometimes, at others I moved nearer work and rented/let the flat out. Then I rented a house in the next road to my flat for roughly the same rent as I wanted a garden and had tenants settled in.... as I didn't own another property, it didn't occur to me that I would be liable for CGT. So now I am loathe to ever sell it. Hoping PM Farage cuts CGT
You could, for example, have a time period of say 12 months where no CGT was payable IF the proceeds were reinvested into other forms of capital investment other than second/third homes. Its the capital velocity argument that SW makes.
However a sudden change might have unintended consequences exposing another Northern Rock where a bank has gone long on mortgages in the expectation of ever increasing house prices. Tax changes need to be introduced in a considered way.
The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic. It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).
Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.
The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.
This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.
Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.
To where?
The problem is not centralisation. The problem is rules without regard for ends.
The desired ends for housing include
1) lower prices 2) increased fire safety 3) reduction in carbon emissions.
The latest rules demand no a/c if possible. Which makes sense with old style a/c. And ‘leccy made from coal.
If you have no a/c, you need multiple aspects (think windows pointing different directions) in all apartments in a building to get natural airflow.
This only helps up to about 25c. Beyond that, people with compromised respiratory system are at risk.
In addition, the requirement for every apartment to be on a corner (as it were) fights against fire safety - where a simple corridor with a stairwell/lift at each end is the best design.
Further, the values used for windows are out of date - leading to specifying small windows to handle the heat/cooling loads passively.
With modern air/air heat pumps, you can heat or cool the air in an apartment efficiently. And the leccy comes, increasingly, from zero carbon sources.
So instead of complicated designs with reduced density, we could have simpler layouts, with better fire safety and cheaper to build.
Strangely, when you look around Europe…
The problem is that the centre is too busy trying to do everything that it can't keep the rules updated as the world changes, or amend them when they come into contact with reality. If you trust people away from the centre, and create mechanisms for correcting mistakes, then you can be more agile.
Trying to run everything from the centre is always a recipe for stasis and inefficiency.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities. It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!
Consequence would be fewer people would sell.
Base cost 20 Sale price 120 Capital gain of 100 Tax of 25 Available capital of 20 + (100-25) =95
Consequence: next house is smaller or in a less nice area
I have made a real howler when it comes to Capital Gains Tax - I bought a flat in 2002 and lived in it sometimes, at others I moved nearer work and rented/let the flat out. Then I rented a house in the next road to my flat for roughly the same rent as I wanted a garden and had tenants settled in.... as I didn't own another property, it didn't occur to me that I would be liable for CGT. So now I am loathe to ever sell it. Hoping PM Farage cuts CGT
You'll only be liable for the CGT for the periods you were not living in the property.
Back in the day there was landlord relief on CGT. Long gone now...
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
The problem with the legislation is not the 2050 target, which is probably not unrealistic. It's that ALL government policy is effectively subordinated by law to CO2 emissions reduction. That leads to some very poor policy being set in stone (and absurdities like Sandy's carbon capture boondoggle).
Other stupid stuff - out of date numbers for efficiency of modern double glazing, A/C and the source of ‘leccy drive planning rules.
The hostility to A/C makes sense if 80% of electricity still came from coal. Which it doesn’t.
This is because Britain is run from the centre with rigid rules, rather than by the people applying a set of principles.
Britain needs to take back control from Westminster.
To where?
The problem is not centralisation. The problem is rules without regard for ends.
The desired ends for housing include
1) lower prices 2) increased fire safety 3) reduction in carbon emissions.
The latest rules demand no a/c if possible. Which makes sense with old style a/c. And ‘leccy made from coal.
If you have no a/c, you need multiple aspects (think windows pointing different directions) in all apartments in a building to get natural airflow.
This only helps up to about 25c. Beyond that, people with compromised respiratory system are at risk.
In addition, the requirement for every apartment to be on a corner (as it were) fights against fire safety - where a simple corridor with a stairwell/lift at each end is the best design.
Further, the values used for windows are out of date - leading to specifying small windows to handle the heat/cooling loads passively.
With modern air/air heat pumps, you can heat or cool the air in an apartment efficiently. And the leccy comes, increasingly, from zero carbon sources.
So instead of complicated designs with reduced density, we could have simpler layouts, with better fire safety and cheaper to build.
Strangely, when you look around Europe…
The problem is that the centre is too busy trying to do everything that it can't keep the rules updated as the world changes, or amend them when they come into contact with reality. If you trust people away from the centre, and create mechanisms for correcting mistakes, then you can be more agile.
Trying to run everything from the centre is always a recipe for stasis and inefficiency.
The centre should be creating a framework that people can operate within, then trust people to do their own thing and take responsibility for their own actions and consequences.
Whatever is not forbidden is permitted, not vice-versa. The problem is regulations increasingly go the other way.
One thing that struck me with the Panorama story (and previous story on undercover in prisons), background checks are clearly absolutely terrible. That should be very concerning.
When you have someone who has been in the Met for 20 years or more, the "background checks" he or she would have gone through in the mid-noughties aren't what they are now. Perhaps the bigger question is the extent of the performance review culture and the way the officers can give the "right" answers to people they don't know and are yet much more confident in the privacy of their office to express their true sentiments.
The latter happens in most, if not all workplaces. I suspect if you did a similar covert filming in a supermarket staff room you'd find some entertaining comments but it's not the same. I know some teachers who say the most appalling things about children and parents when they think they are "in private".
I think you are missing my point. If they hire a journalist who works at the BBC and no clue they are doing so, how hard is it for a clean skin that is a associate of somebody involved in organised crime to get their foot in the door. There has been reports that there are serious concerns this is happening in police and prisons, where civilians roles are easy jobs to get and now actually "front line" e.g. I honestly didn't know a civilian could do the job the Panorama journalist was doing, I presume all they did was filing paperwork.
Also worth noting that the authorities having access to Encrochat was busted by a corrupt civilian employees in the police who reported it to criminal associate.
A close relative is a civilian in the Police. She manages a team contracted to do the DBS checks for most of the country.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?
You don't need to run more trains to increase capacity. There are far too many services operated by 5-car sets, rather than 9 or 10. Run every service with a full-length train, and there will be plenty of extra passenger capacity. But that would require the procurement of more trains.
They should also get rid of the cherry-picking open access operators (who all operate half-size trains), so that we have a fully-joined up timetable.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will quite possibly save money within the next 12 months and should save vast sums of money within the next five years, since a single lock as it should be would not see yo-yo ratchetting as we have seen in the past decade.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?
You don't need to run more trains to increase capacity. There are far too many services operated by 5-car sets, rather than 9 or 10. Run every service with a full-length train, and there will be plenty of extra passenger capacity. But that would require the procurement of more trains.
They should also get rid of the cherry-picking open access operators (who all operate half-size trains), so that we have a fully-joined up timetable.
But why is buying more carriages so hard, when it's only 13% of costs?
Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?
You don't need to run more trains to increase capacity. There are far too many services operated by 5-car sets, rather than 9 or 10. Run every service with a full-length train, and there will be plenty of extra passenger capacity. But that would require the procurement of more trains.
They should also get rid of the cherry-picking open access operators (who all operate half-size trains), so that we have a fully-joined up timetable.
But why is buying more carriages so hard, when it's only 13% of costs?
Every percentage counts but cleaning and maintaining the extra carriages would increase the cost shown in other which includes cleaning and maintenance, so that 13% figure is not necessarily accurate for what the costs would be.
EDIT: Longer trains would presumably also significantly increase the mass of the trains and energy required to haul those trains too, so that percentage should go up. Could require extra staffing too.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will quite possibly save money within the next 12 months and should save vast sums of money within the next five years, since a single lock as it should be would not see yo-yo ratchetting as we have seen in the past decade.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
And, contrary to what our basket-dwelling friend suggested above, if instead pensions were merely CPI linked, people wouldn't actually lose out
As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.
Scotrail has improved since it was nationalised.
Do you have any statistical evidence for that? My anecdotal experience is the same story of no working wi-fi, few working plugs, poor time keeping behind late running trains, exactly the same crap we have put up with for years.
As I've said many times before: ownership structure of the railways is relatively unimportant, and what matters are the overall decisions made - often by the government, whether the railways are private or nationalised. Anyone who thought: "We'll nationalise the railways and they'll automagically get better!" were being utterly stupid.
Scotrail has improved since it was nationalised.
Do you have any statistical evidence for that? My anecdotal experience is the same story of no working wi-fi, few working plugs, poor time keeping behind late running trains, exactly the same crap we have put up with for years.
Yes but it now has a Saltire. What more do you want?
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Didn't you hear about Gillian Anderson's book, Want?
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities. It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!
Consequence would be fewer people would sell.
Base cost 20 Sale price 120 Capital gain of 100 Tax of 25 Available capital of 20 + (100-25) =95
Consequence: next house is smaller or in a less nice area
I have made a real howler when it comes to Capital Gains Tax - I bought a flat in 2002 and lived in it sometimes, at others I moved nearer work and rented/let the flat out. Then I rented a house in the next road to my flat for roughly the same rent as I wanted a garden and had tenants settled in.... as I didn't own another property, it didn't occur to me that I would be liable for CGT. So now I am loathe to ever sell it. Hoping PM Farage cuts CGT
AIUI if you move back in for a time (may be 1-3 years) as your main dwelling you avoid the CGT.
(I'm not quite up to date, but that is the form.)
But if you are providing a good dwelling for someone who needs it, and it works as an investment, I don't see any problem except for demagogues.
There may be ways to optimise, but you need to take careful advice. It is complicated and changes like a kaleidoscope.
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Mills and Boon made a fortune off semi-rapey bodice rippers. I had a friend who used to be into them. She was an odd duck...
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Didn't you hear about Gillian Anderson's book, Want?
What rock have you been under?
Be fair, its not like he's involved in the bad sex fiction literary world.
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Didn't you hear about Gillian Anderson's book, Want?
What rock have you been under?
Yes, I know that book. It's in the tradition of Nancy Friday and Shere Hite - a non fiction analysis of female sex desires and fantasies
I am talking about fiction. Topping the bestseller lists, which is all about rape, by stalkers, murderers, Mafia bosses. And women are buying it
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
The top Harry Potter fan fiction, written by a woman of course, involves Malfoy kidnapping Hermione at least according to my wife.
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Didn't you hear about Gillian Anderson's book, Want?
What rock have you been under?
Yes, I know that book. It's in the tradition of Nancy Friday and Shere Hite - a non fiction analysis of female sex desires and fantasies
I am talking about fiction. Topping the bestseller lists, which is all about rape, by stalkers, murderers, Mafia bosses. And women are buying it
It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from one to the other.
If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.
Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...
As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.
At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.
That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.
One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.
Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.
I would just say that the prices of new build property around us is way out of the pocket of local buyers
Of course local authorities in Wales are implementing surcharges on second homes which next year will be a 200% uplift in Conwy
Local Estate Agents tell me a lot of second home owners are selling up and indeed, my daughter, following her divorce, is buying one such property
If the market was mostly driven by second home owners then surely that will just even out in the long term.
It will hit current owners but new ones will just pay a lower price and a bit more council tax.
Its actually a lot more council tax
In my case if it was applicable it would rise from £4,000 to £12,000 pa
£4000 is a lot by Flatland standards, that would be the highest band (H).
For a band H house, surely a, say, £100k drop isn't out of the question if the demand disappears?
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Sounds like they might have at least one male buyer.
If you want to raise more tax, get economic growth going.
Otherwise you end up in a doom loop, where tax rises suppress economic activity, which means you don't raise as much tax as you'd expected, which means you need to increase tax rates...
As I keep pointing out, the UK economy is growing the fastest in G7 despite Reeves inheriting a very poor fiscal situation that necessitated tax rises, and some general economic headwinds from US tariffs.
At the same time, Reeves has increased capital spending for long term growth and unlocked a number of large infrastructure projects that were stuck. Lots more to be done, but it's a very tricky balancing act at the moment.
That is as maybe, but the entire developed world is suffering from slow growth - partly that's because of long term structural headwinds around demographics, but made worse by the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has pushed up energy prices, and Trump's tariffs.
One thing the government do is significantly loosen planning controls and buildling regulations. This would have the twin benefit of increasing housing supply, and driving economic growth.
Here's my one factoid for the day: residential construction as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 7% of GDP in the early 1970s, to 5.8% between 1991 and 2007, to under 4% now. Given the increase in population we've seen, that is insanity.
I would just say that the prices of new build property around us is way out of the pocket of local buyers
Of course local authorities in Wales are implementing surcharges on second homes which next year will be a 200% uplift in Conwy
Local Estate Agents tell me a lot of second home owners are selling up and indeed, my daughter, following her divorce, is buying one such property
If the market was mostly driven by second home owners then surely that will just even out in the long term.
It will hit current owners but new ones will just pay a lower price and a bit more council tax.
Its actually a lot more council tax
In my case if it was applicable it would rise from £4,000 to £12,000 pa
£4000 is a lot by Flatland standards, that would be the highest band (H).
For a band H house, surely a, say, £100k drop isn't out of the question if the demand disappears?
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Her MO pretty much. Oh for the halcyon days when she went off on one about kids identifying as cats based on assiduous research and irrefutable evidence.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will quite possibly save money within the next 12 months and should save vast sums of money within the next five years, since a single lock as it should be would not see yo-yo ratchetting as we have seen in the past decade.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
It sounds like you have mistaken the whole pension bill for the annual increase, and are then aggregating future years pensions but not the rest of government spending.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will quite possibly save money within the next 12 months and should save vast sums of money within the next five years, since a single lock as it should be would not see yo-yo ratchetting as we have seen in the past decade.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
It sounds like you have mistaken the whole pension bill for the annual increase, and are then aggregating future years pensions but not the rest of government spending.
No mistake.
Increasing the pension bill by (for example) 0.2% less next year would save a very significant sum of money. More than almost any other feasible change.
Doing so, compound, over the next few years would save many billions of pounds, in the short term of our upcoming years let alone medium or long term.
An employer has £100 extra to use on employment costs, so he spends it on his employee, earning £30,000 pa. What happens to the £100.
He has to pay 15% employers NI, so he pays £85.
Of this 8% goes in employees NI, making £78.20.
20% goes in IT, making £61.20
And he pays 9% because he has a student loan.
So he receives £53.50.
Which he spends on a VATable item worth £44.60 at 20% rate.
I imagine my data and maths are imperfect, but it's not far out. It's how the state plucks the goose with the minimum of hissing, and manages to raise over 40% of GDP for the state to spend.
If there were no other taxes but the IT basic rate was 55% we would notice more.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Mills and Boon made a fortune off semi-rapey bodice rippers. I had a friend who used to be into them. She was an odd duck...
As you say, it is hardly anything new, even if Leondoofus only found out last week. The mistake is assuming that very many people want the things they find stimulating as thoughts to actually come to pass.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
The claim that: cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus seems far-fetched. Cutting the state pension in half might do it but that would be, in Sir Humphrey's parlance, courageous.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will quite possibly save money within the next 12 months and should save vast sums of money within the next five years, since a single lock as it should be would not see yo-yo ratchetting as we have seen in the past decade.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
It sounds like you have mistaken the whole pension bill for the annual increase, and are then aggregating future years pensions but not the rest of government spending.
No mistake.
Increasing the pension bill by (for example) 0.2% less next year would save a very significant sum of money. More than almost any other feasible change.
Doing so, compound, over the next few years would save many billions of pounds, in the short term of our upcoming years let alone medium or long term.
So as I said, no immediate saving, and future savings only from the time the triple lock increase would be higher than whatever replaces the triple lock (assuming the state pension will not be frozen in perpetuity).
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.
She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.
Life is about choices.
It’s not clear to me that legislation to make a political target legally binding is what the law is intended for
Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.
She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.
CBI have come out against her plans.
If Tories can't keep the CBI on board what hope have they got.
It's just Farage-lite now
CBI is in hock to big business who like expensive regulations because they represent a barrier to entry. The FSB is much more interesting
Manchester Evening News has images of a bomb disposal van deployed to the Synagogue.
I would think that's SOP in such an incident where a vehicle is involved. Call them out, just in case.
I noticed it was manoeuvring around a fire engine and actually partially caught it and a fire officer was seen inspecting what I would expect was minor damage
Manchester Evening News has images of a bomb disposal van deployed to the Synagogue.
I would think that's SOP in such an incident where a vehicle is involved. Call them out, just in case.
I noticed it was manoeuvring around a fire engine and actually partially caught it and a fire officer was seen inspecting what I would expect was minor damage
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
ETA: Also interested in net rates - it's mostly DLA for older people, still, I think (born per 1948?) but for people needing to claim due to age-related issues there would clearly be some churn as people die and new people get old and start to claim. There must be large numbers newly claiming old age pension each day, too.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
I would introduce CGT on all property, including personal residences. I would base it on a valuation at 6 April 2026. Taxpayers would have a choice of paying gains annually or when they sell their property. I would ring fence the revenue and pass it to local authorities for a massive home building scheme. I would allow local authorities to bypass planning regulations for their own builds. This would reduce house prices to a more affordable level. It would increase availability of secure rented accommodation and reduce the emphasis on private rental, which is less secure, more expensive and poorer quality. It would rebalance income from national governments to more accountable local authorities. It’s probably a good job I’m not looking to be elected!
So let's say I own a house worth 500k. Next year the value increases to 550k so I have to pay CGT. The following year afterwards the value drops back down to 500k. Does the Government now give me a refund?
No, but you don’t pay any more CGT until your house value rises above £550k again.
And how do most people fund this £10-15k tax bill?
Kemi demonstrating that she is unfit to be Prime Minister.
She seems to be doing her best to scare away those who, like me, have never yet voted Conservative but would be prepared to do so in order to keep Reform out.
Life is about choices.
It’s not clear to me that legislation to make a political target legally binding is what the law is intended for
It was a way of trying to force future people to do something we weren't willing to do at the time. Much like with government borrowing forcing future taxpayers to pay for things we aren't willing to pay for today.
I would have much preferred the government of the day put effort into practical actions that would achieve the desired outcome, rather than pass laws promising that someone else would do so in the future.
We've been saying for a long time that the average person thinks taxes should be higher but should conveniently only start to affect people better off than themselves.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
The politicians do indeed cut current spending, and call it "austerity". The problem is the big ticket cuts are often things that promote growth or reduce costs. After they get cut, often, like HS2, at a higher cost than actually building the thing, everyone wonders why public administration is so crap and nothing works. The biggest thing that could be done now is to cut the triple lock on pensions. That alone would bring public finances into primary surplus. However "they/we contributed all their/our lives", even though, actually they/we mostly didn't. So in the end unless the voters are prepared to bite the bullet, you can hardly blame the politicians if they choose not to do so either.
Where is the evidence that most people didn't contribute all their working lives? I certainly did. Cutting the lock arbitrarily would help plunge lots of pensioners into poverty. It needs reform yes, but there would be little big savings immediately.
Nonsense
What’s nonsense about it?
- request for evidence on non contribution - Personal statement - “Would help plunge” a little emotive but difficult to disprove - “Needs reform” - belief statement - “Little big savings” horrible grammar but a true statement
Decades of deficits and no defined contribution savings set aside = evidence of non-contribution.
Would plunge is nonsense. If pensions were tied to either inflation or wage rises then it would keep the real terms value of pensions in line rather than ratchet it up only in one direction. Nothing would go down.
"Little big savings" is an entirely false statement, it is our number one budget expenditure item. Even a small percentage reduction in expenditure would be massive savings. A small slice of a very big pie is a considerable sum of money.
You’ve missed out key words:
“Would HELP plunge” is talking about the future - you’ve also posited a new factor (mitigating policy). Me not buying a new car and therefore not paying VAT “helps plunge” the UK towards bankruptcy…
“Little big savings IMMEDIATELY”… the triple lock is about the future not current expenditure
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
PIP replaced Disability Living Allowance which was also not a work related benefit.
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Old school romance frequently involves a real manly hero raping the heroine.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
Why should there be? Disabled people are human beings not fucking circus animals
PIP isn't easy to claim. You don't just stop work and get PIP. It takes many months of hefty paperwork, tribunals and appeals. Maybe a better question might be. Why is the UK work environment so unattractive, unwelcoming, unrewarding and unhealthy that doing that is preferable?
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
PIP replaced Disability Living Allowance which was also not a work related benefit.
PIP award is irrelevant to whether you work, are looking for work, or don't need to look for work. It money for the additional costs of being disabled.
The work related stuff is contributory or income - based ESA and whatever the newer merged UC/ESA thing is called.
Now you could well say that if you get UC/ESA and can add PIP on top you get enough not to have to look for work but that's different to what Badenoch is claiming.
The system is a mess as it is without politicians making basic mistakes about its workings.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
Why should there be? Disabled people are human beings not fucking circus animals
Unclear which fund is meant.
Access to Work? There bloody well is the need to document every penny, believe me. I've had to deal with the admin for one such scheme at work.
PIP? For basic stuff? That they need?
The thing I notice instantly is that you'd need to bring similar rules in for every single 'benefit' to avoid a massive breach of the equalities legislation. Edit: UC, child benefit, etc. etc. Every poster on here attacking benefits would need to show that he or she spent every penny of, say, child benefit/allowance on nappies etc.
Manchester Evening News has images of a bomb disposal van deployed to the Synagogue.
I would think that's SOP in such an incident where a vehicle is involved. Call them out, just in case.
I’ve seen footage of the police shooting the attacker and the copper saying he’s got a bomb on his fucking jacket and he’s trying to press it.
My friend’s grandfather goes to this synagogue.
Hopefully the body-cam footage clears the copper quickly.
Other than the formality to be followed, I doubt many would question why a lunatic wielding a knife outside a Synagogue on Yom Kippur, whilst apparently wearing an explosive vest after having stabbed people, shouldn't be justifiably shot by a trained officer.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
True.
Which presumably is where the idea of vouchers rather than £ comes in.
Sure would have been good to have a new fast North-South passenger rail line to take the load off the other lines: Clearly the demand is there to make it profitable. What happened to that idea I wonder?
You don't need to run more trains to increase capacity. There are far too many services operated by 5-car sets, rather than 9 or 10. Run every service with a full-length train, and there will be plenty of extra passenger capacity. But that would require the procurement of more trains.
They should also get rid of the cherry-picking open access operators (who all operate half-size trains), so that we have a fully-joined up timetable.
But why is buying more carriages so hard, when it's only 13% of costs?
Every percentage counts but cleaning and maintaining the extra carriages would increase the cost shown in other which includes cleaning and maintenance, so that 13% figure is not necessarily accurate for what the costs would be.
EDIT: Longer trains would presumably also significantly increase the mass of the trains and energy required to haul those trains too, so that percentage should go up. Could require extra staffing too.
Is the normal cause for limitations on the lengths of trains not usually the lengths of platforms, and other aspects of our heritage railway infrastructure?
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Didn't you hear about Gillian Anderson's book, Want?
What rock have you been under?
Yes, I know that book. It's in the tradition of Nancy Friday and Shere Hite - a non fiction analysis of female sex desires and fantasies
I am talking about fiction. Topping the bestseller lists, which is all about rape, by stalkers, murderers, Mafia bosses. And women are buying it
Here's the weird thing, fiction about serial killers is really popular among the 99.99% of us who are potential victims, rather than serial killers.
This is a weird thing which goes back to the beginning of recorded history, and most likely before that.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
About 5/6 according to OBR, but it's still not an out-of-work sickness benefit.
(There's a valid question about whether the claims are justified)
All claims are justified every 3 years or sooner. There is a very large form to fill out. I've completed a few and the questions are quite detailed if somewhat intrusive. A lot are rejected by the DWP (poor staff training) but are paid after a visit to a Tribunal and a long delay.
The payments are lawful and justified under the current legislation. If people want it changed then Parliament has to sit down and change the legislation after consultation, impact assessments, reference to linked legislation etc. No-one wants to touch it and Kemi is just making noise as she will be aware of the issue.
You can be certain many people living day to day are living a more fulfilling honest life valuing things money cannot buy
For some people, their net worth is how they keep score, how they know that they are winning at life. (After all, once you are living well off the interest on the interest, what else can you do but view it as a number in a game?) Dying rich equalling dying disgraced has gone out of fashion.
I suspect it's part of why taxes are so toxic at the top end- it's not about the value of the money, it's about a sense of the government taking a chunk of their life away.
See also: the power of inheritance tax to scare people, when rationally it's the one time we pay taxes without losing.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
Why should there be? Disabled people are human beings not fucking circus animals
Unclear which fund is meant.
Access to Work? There bloody well is the need to document every penny, believe me. I've had to deal with the admin for one such scheme at work.
PIP? For basic stuff? That they need?
The thing I notice instantly is that you'd need to bring similar rules in for every single 'benefit' to avoid a massive breach of the equalities legislation. Edit: UC, child benefit, etc. etc. Every poster on here attacking benefits would need to show that he or she spent every penny of, say, child benefit/allowance on nappies etc.
On the latter point, absolutely where it ends up. The idea that additional costs for disability needs are fixed monthly/weekly etc or that the disabled should be keeping detailed accounts is barking. Is every tax break or allowance going to be audited for every cituzen? Nope.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
About 5/6 according to OBR, but it's still not an out-of-work sickness benefit.
(There's a valid question about whether the claims are justified)
All claims are justified every 3 years or sooner. There is a very large form to fill out. I've completed a few and the questions are quite detailed if somewhat intrusive. A lot are rejected by the DWP (poor staff training) but are paid after a visit to a Tribunal and a long delay.
The payments are lawful and justified under the current legislation. If people want it changed then Parliament has to sit down and change the legislation after consultation, impact assessments, reference to linked legislation etc. No-one wants to touch it and Kemi is just making noise as she will be aware of the issue.
She really is a dud.
Yes, sorry - by 'justified' I meant whether the criteria - and maybe assessment - are where they should be.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
Maybe not technically but it is in practice. Millions now get PIP with no requirement for work or to look for work. The Tories really fucked it and Kemi should make the apology to taxpayers.
It's not aimed at work or not/work. It's aimed at thew added costs of survival. So work is irrelevant.
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
But there's no requirement to prove that you have spent it on such things
True.
Which presumably is where the idea of vouchers rather than £ comes in.
Vouchers for what and where? There isnt a one stop wretch shop Everyone's needs are different and costs will vary, often wildly, month to month
Manchester Evening News has images of a bomb disposal van deployed to the Synagogue.
I would think that's SOP in such an incident where a vehicle is involved. Call them out, just in case.
I’ve seen footage of the police shooting the attacker and the copper saying he’s got a bomb on his fucking jacket and he’s trying to press it.
My friend’s grandfather goes to this synagogue.
Hopefully the body-cam footage clears the copper quickly.
Other than the formality to be followed, I doubt many would question why a lunatic wielding a knife outside a Synagogue on Yom Kippur, whilst apparently wearing an explosive vest after having stabbed people, shouldn't be justifiably shot by a trained officer.
Trouble is, this can encourage the next guy who sees this as a short-cut to heaven, a point I'd be playing up if I were recruiting mentally challenged volunteers for the next mission.
A really strange one from Kemi. She does not even explain what she is referring to precisely, never mind link to any actual evidence. Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic. "What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
About 5/6 according to OBR, but it's still not an out-of-work sickness benefit.
(There's a valid question about whether the claims are justified)
All claims are justified every 3 years or sooner. There is a very large form to fill out. I've completed a few and the questions are quite detailed if somewhat intrusive. A lot are rejected by the DWP (poor staff training) but are paid after a visit to a Tribunal and a long delay.
The payments are lawful and justified under the current legislation. If people want it changed then Parliament has to sit down and change the legislation after consultation, impact assessments, reference to linked legislation etc. No-one wants to touch it and Kemi is just making noise as she will be aware of the issue.
She really is a dud.
One would have thought after the blowback Reeves and Starmer received for attacking disabled related benefits, she would steer clear without copper bottomed advice. Suggesting PIP is an out of work benefit suggests she hasn't bothered with any due diligence.
Comments
A fiver for every Radiohead diss...
The desired ends for housing include
1) lower prices
2) increased fire safety
3) reduction in carbon emissions.
The latest rules demand no a/c if possible. Which makes sense with old style a/c. And ‘leccy made from coal.
If you have no a/c, you need multiple aspects (think windows pointing different directions) in all apartments in a building to get natural airflow.
This only helps up to about 25c. Beyond that, people with compromised respiratory system are at risk.
In addition, the requirement for every apartment to be on a corner (as it were) fights against fire safety - where a simple corridor with a stairwell/lift at each end is the best design.
Further, the values used for windows are out of date - leading to specifying small windows to handle the heat/cooling loads passively.
With modern air/air heat pumps, you can heat or cool the air in an apartment efficiently. And the leccy comes, increasingly, from zero carbon sources.
So instead of complicated designs with reduced density, we could have simpler layouts, with better fire safety and cheaper to build.
Strangely, when you look around Europe…
What angers me is that they need to be matched with at least equivalent cuts in public spending so that a real and meaningful dent can be made in our scary deficits. When I hear nonsense like removing the 2 child cap after the WFA for millionaires, the rejection of the cuts on disability benefits and the bottomless pit of the NHS to pay ever higher wages with consequential pension liabilities I....am disappointed.
It's frankly pathetic that the government has yet to do anything about is, as Labour's own think tanks are among those pointing out much of the above.
Another Rayner fail.
And again frankly, she should have contented herself with being a high ranking totem like Prescott.
For the record, my usual reply, especially when I'm in a good mood, is 'Thanks but I'm quite happy.' When I'm in a bad bad I';m tempted to say ...... off, but I don't use that sort of language.
However a sudden change might have unintended consequences exposing another Northern Rock where a bank has gone long on mortgages in the expectation of ever increasing house prices. Tax changes need to be introduced in a considered way.
Trying to run everything from the centre is always a recipe for stasis and inefficiency.
Back in the day there was landlord relief on CGT. Long gone now...
One of the most popular new genres in fiction is "Dark Romance". Which is a euphemistic name for "rape fantasy fiction". Yes
Entire novels which are centred around the idea of a villainous "hero" taking, without consent, or with very very blurred consent, the heroine.. Often the "hero" is an actual criminal, often he kidnaps the woman, sometimes there is quite a lot of violence towards the woman
It's being bought by the shedload, in America, Germany, Scandinavia, and increasingly Britain. Who is buying it? Women
Whatever is not forbidden is permitted, not vice-versa. The problem is regulations increasingly go the other way.
She manages a team contracted to do the DBS checks for most of the country.
In the immediate term, ending the triple lock will save no money at all because pension payments would continue at the current rate. In the medium term, ending it will save money only in those years when the triple lock would mandate a higher pension rise than whatever replaces it, presumably a single or double lock, or tying the pension to inflation as it used to be, or to wages as it used to be.
They should also get rid of the cherry-picking open access operators (who all operate half-size trains), so that we have a fully-joined up timetable.
It would save far, far, far more than any other policy could, because no other policy touches the sides of the expenditure this one does.
But why is buying more carriages so hard, when it's only 13% of costs?
EDIT: Longer trains would presumably also significantly increase the mass of the trains and energy required to haul those trains too, so that percentage should go up. Could require extra staffing too.
What rock have you been under?
(I'm not quite up to date, but that is the form.)
But if you are providing a good dwelling for someone who needs it, and it works as an investment, I don't see any problem except for demagogues.
There may be ways to optimise, but you need to take careful advice. It is complicated and changes like a kaleidoscope.
You'd better hope so.
I am talking about fiction. Topping the bestseller lists, which is all about rape, by stalkers, murderers, Mafia bosses. And women are buying it
We are at a 'nadir' of hate coming from all sides and I simply despair
It is incumbent on all politicians to dial down the rhetoric
For a band H house, surely a, say, £100k drop isn't out of the question if the demand disappears?
Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h
Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
@Conservatives
are the only party with a plan to cut our spiralling welfare state.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1973428659001368800
Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch 18h
Every day under Labour, an extra 1000 people sign on to out of work sickness benefits.
If you’re too weak to fix that, you have no right to increase taxes on people in work.
@Conservatives are the only party with a plan to cut our spiralling welfare state.
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1973428659001368800
Oh for the halcyon days when she went off on one about kids identifying as cats based on assiduous research and irrefutable evidence.
In any case, 1000 a day seems about right given the increase in claimants in recent years.
Increasing the pension bill by (for example) 0.2% less next year would save a very significant sum of money. More than almost any other feasible change.
Doing so, compound, over the next few years would save many billions of pounds, in the short term of our upcoming years let alone medium or long term.
An employer has £100 extra to use on employment costs, so he spends it on his employee, earning £30,000 pa. What happens to the £100.
He has to pay 15% employers NI, so he pays £85.
Of this 8% goes in employees NI, making £78.20.
20% goes in IT, making £61.20
And he pays 9% because he has a student loan.
So he receives £53.50.
Which he spends on a VATable item worth £44.60 at 20% rate.
I imagine my data and maths are imperfect, but it's not far out. It's how the state plucks the goose with the minimum of hissing, and manages to raise over 40% of GDP for the state to spend.
If there were no other taxes but the IT basic rate was 55% we would notice more.
Louise Murphy, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, points out that approval rates for both face-to-face and remote assessments are largely unchanged since the pandemic.
"What has changed is way more people are claiming Pip - the government's own figures show there are around 1,000 new awards made each day," she says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5zz6pm15lo
Not, the UK is not particularly awful at big infrastructure projects - unless you compare to authoritarian states.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gh836v
PIP is not a sickness benefit. Nor is it an out of work benefit.
If so, no wonder she was too embarrassed to name it.
But surely she would not make that kind of mistake?
It’s not clear to me that legislation to make a political target legally binding is what the law is intended for
ETA: Also interested in net rates - it's mostly DLA for older people, still, I think (born per 1948?) but for people needing to claim due to age-related issues there would clearly be some churn as people die and new people get old and start to claim. There must be large numbers newly claiming old age pension each day, too.
I would have much preferred the government of the day put effort into practical actions that would achieve the desired outcome, rather than pass laws promising that someone else would do so in the future.
One other issue: is PIP replacing something else in some of those new awards? Or even new PIP *contracts" for the same person?
IANAE but it is an obvious issue, often - presumably - deliberately ignored by right-wingers in similar statements about new systems such as UC.
“Would HELP plunge” is talking about the future - you’ve also posited a new factor (mitigating policy). Me not buying a new car and therefore not paying VAT “helps plunge” the UK towards bankruptcy…
“Little big savings IMMEDIATELY”… the triple lock is about the future not current expenditure
My friend’s grandfather goes to this synagogue.
(There's a valid question about whether the claims are justified)
I suspect, not here but more generally, that there is also confusion with the Access to Work scheme which goes to *employers* - to cover, for instance, special IT kit.
Disabled people are human beings not fucking circus animals
🟦 Reform UK: 35% (+2)
🔴 Labour: 19% (+2)
🔵 Conservatives: 14% (-)
🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-4)
🟢 Greens: 11% (-1)
Changes from 24th September
[Find Out Now, 1st October, N=2,611]"
https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/1973701356553949373
You don't just stop work and get PIP. It takes many months of hefty paperwork, tribunals and appeals.
Maybe a better question might be.
Why is the UK work environment so unattractive, unwelcoming, unrewarding and unhealthy that doing that is preferable?
The work related stuff is contributory or income - based ESA and whatever the newer merged UC/ESA thing is called.
Now you could well say that if you get UC/ESA and can add PIP on top you get enough not to have to look for work but that's different to what Badenoch is claiming.
The system is a mess as it is without politicians making basic mistakes about its workings.
The British Transport Police (BTP) says it will not investigate bike thefts outside stations where the bicycle has been left for more than two hours.
Access to Work? There bloody well is the need to document every penny, believe me. I've had to deal with the admin for one such scheme at work.
PIP? For basic stuff? That they need?
The thing I notice instantly is that you'd need to bring similar rules in for every single 'benefit' to avoid a massive breach of the equalities legislation. Edit: UC, child benefit, etc. etc. Every poster on here attacking benefits would need to show that he or she spent every penny of, say, child benefit/allowance on nappies etc.
Which presumably is where the idea of vouchers rather than £ comes in.
Our PB railway-station-spotter will know.
This is a weird thing which goes back to the beginning of recorded history, and most likely before that.
The payments are lawful and justified under the current legislation. If people want it changed then Parliament has to sit down and change the legislation after consultation, impact assessments, reference to linked legislation etc. No-one wants to touch it and Kemi is just making noise as she will be aware of the issue.
She really is a dud.
I suspect it's part of why taxes are so toxic at the top end- it's not about the value of the money, it's about a sense of the government taking a chunk of their life away.
See also: the power of inheritance tax to scare people, when rationally it's the one time we pay taxes without losing.
The British Transport Police (BTP) says it will not investigate bike thefts outside stations where the bicycle has been left for more than two hours.
It means most bike thefts will not be investigated and CCTV footage will not be looked at outside a two-hour timeframe."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jm3wxvlkjo.amp
The idea that additional costs for disability needs are fixed monthly/weekly etc or that the disabled should be keeping detailed accounts is barking.
Is every tax break or allowance going to be audited for every cituzen? Nope.
Everyone's needs are different and costs will vary, often wildly, month to month