I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Or when you next get new prescription glasses, ask your optician for the right coating. Yellow for driving. Blue for computers.
I’m going to ask what I can do when I’m at the opticians. I dread having to drive at night as I feel unsafe when dazzled by blinding headlights. It’s much more dangerous than speeding. Perhaps the traffic police should review their priorities.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
Nothing a year-by-year reverse mortgage product couldn't fix. Stay and pay.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Everyone with a NI number that ends in an odd number has to give all their wealth and future income to the person with the nearest NI ending in an even number?
You are Thanos and I claim my Infinity Stone.
Mine ends in a letter. Does that mean I scoop the pot?
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Vehicle lighting, including light aim, is already tested as part of the MOT.
If these are after-market changes then the car owner will swap them in and out to pass the MOT, so it may catch some of the numpties but not all
At least some of the problem is height - if I have a pickup truck or a big SUV behind me, their lights are pretty much at my eye level in my hatchback.
Don't have the same issue with lorries/buses, but their lights tend to be much lower down. I have no data to support this - a lived experience insight.
I don’t seem to have a problem with lights behind me. It’s oncoming traffic that is an issue.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
Not if they've any sense. The Liberal Democrats will explain to you what happens next...
Though the only advice to give the Conservatives then is "I wouldn't start from here". They're probably doomed whatever happens.
The options are:
1 Back Reform in a coalition. Almost certain death next time.
2 Buttress Reform, either in a formal C+S arrangement or informally. Less blood on hands (see tuition fees), but also less power. And in practice, just as much of the blame for the bad stuff you didn't vote against.
3 Oppose Reform with variable degrees of organisation. Let Nigel try to run a minority government with whatever bunch of grumpy gadflies get elected. Probably safest, but that just highlights how irrelevant the Conservatives would have become. And opposing their brother right-wingers would send the bulk of the party dolally (see 2010).
Small parties often fantasise about being The Kingmaker- having the outsized power to choose between two viable governments. It hardly ever happens that way. Partly realpolitik, but mostly arithmetic.
The Tories have a glorious opportunity - rethink society in opposition as they did in the mid 70s.
The question is why they don't, then you remember that they are so devoid of talent that Matt Vickers has a senior role...
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
Anyone with a £3m house is likely to have millions in savings, pensions and investments.
The number of people with £3m houses is tiny and those that do without having the other financial assets is a tiny number of a tiny number.
And those that do can always, to use an old phrase, get on their bike and look for a house they can afford.
It shouldn't be hard as it would include about 99% of the country.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
Isn’t the problem that all the regulations were written pre-LED so things like maximum wattage and beam patterns etc are no longer fit for purpose for low energy but high brightness matrix LEDs?
Automatic dipping headlights are also a problem, as it leads to drivers not dipping even when their lights are clearly causing a problem to oncoming traffic. Of course, in our current selfish society, there are many drivers without automatically dipping lights who don’t give a f*ck about anyone else.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
Most convincing fix = Target the most gullible voters?
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
£350k would last me a while. Will pay for a lot of cruises.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
You live in a big house because you have a family. 2 people living in a 2.4m house is a higher standard of living than 5 people living in a 3.3m house
And surely you downsize to liberate cash and spend it on enjoying yourself.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
About 3-4x for me but does seem like a sensible move.
The problem electorally with these changes is you get far less credit from the beneficiaries than you do blame from the losers - so the big changes we need, never actually happen and we tinker along the edges instead.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
How on earth has their standard of living fallen? They've made £600k, tax free. They could sell up, move to Greenock, spend their entire retirement going on £350k worth of cruises, and still pass on a £2 million house (which they probably bought for £2 and a twix in the 70s).
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
0.5% is reckoned to be equivalent to replacing Council Tax.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
If the Greens get into second place it might be a case of voting Reform as the moderate option.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
Anyone with a £3m house is likely to have millions in savings, pensions and investments.
The number of people with £3m houses is tiny and those that do without having the other financial assets is a tiny number of a tiny number.
And those that do can always, to use an old phrase, get on their bike and look for a house they can afford.
It shouldn't be hard as it would include about 99% of the country.
A lot of assumptions you are making there.
For example, take someone who is 70 now and bought their “forever home” when they were 50. A £1.6m property (probably with a large mortgage) in 2005 is worth £2.95m today according to Nationwide.
Absolutely not clear that they would have “millions” in investments especially as, if they did, they would have been hit by the 2008 crash when they were at peak equity exposure and then have been increasingly bond heavy coming into the tech boom.
But, as always with my posts, I’m interested in what is right for the economy and fair for the taxpayer vs hitting people that I am jealous of.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
How on earth has their standard of living fallen? They've made £600k, tax free. They could sell up, move to Greenock, spend their entire retirement going on £350k worth of cruises, and still pass on a £2 million house (which they probably bought for £2 and a twix in the 70s).
This is WFP all over again.
Because an unrealised gain has nothing to do with standard of living.
It’s like saying Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are worth £300bn each, so should pay £3bn a year in tax on the shares that would crash if they actually tried to sell them in those quantities, and over the course of a couple of decades would take half of their net worth.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
Yes and use about half of that to replace Samp duty/council tax and the balance to reduce the deficit
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
If the government gets tax revenue from house price inflation, it has zero interest in taking steps to curb that inflation. That obvious conflict of interest will inevitably lead to bad policy making and disadvantage those wanting a home.
It is precisely the same conflict of interest created by the tax revenues from ever higher City bonuses and profits. It blinded the government to how those profits and bonuses arose and the dangers that activity posed.
The obvious thing to do IMO is to have higher rate council tax bands for expensive properties rather than yet another tax which will distort the market.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
You'll probably find that the bike light manufacturers are producing lights that meet regulations in their whole market, so lights sold here will meet German regs. There may be some lag as they sell off old stock. So it'll just be those bought off Ali-express that meet no regs.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
0.5% is reckoned to be equivalent to replacing Council Tax.
At those figures, I would be paying about the same as Council Tax now and the scheme would raise about £45 billion but that leaves the £15 billion or so from Stamp Duty. If you want to abolish that as well, you'd need a 0.75% figure.
The other question is if you take a property value as at, for example, 1st April 2027 as your starting point, how will you change the tax in future years - periodic revaluations (3 years) would seem best but I suspect the cop out will be some measure of house price inflation which won't take into account regional variations in property values.
You'd also need to look at land values with or without planning permission.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
About threefold for Chateau Romford. Very unpleasant, but the right sort of scale for what needs to be done. And I doubt anyone has got a better idea.
(If you are about to say "how about cutting government spending", I want a list of "cut X, which has downside Y but will save Z a year", where the total of all the Zs is in the high tens of billions a year.)
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
How on earth has their standard of living fallen? They've made £600k, tax free. They could sell up, move to Greenock, spend their entire retirement going on £350k worth of cruises, and still pass on a £2 million house (which they probably bought for £2 and a twix in the 70s).
This is WFP all over again.
Because a £2m house is worth less than a £3m house. It may be smaller, not have a garden, be in a less nice area, whatever. All of those factor into standard of living
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
About threefold for Chateau Romford. Very unpleasant, but the right sort of scale for what needs to be done. And I doubt anyone has got a better idea.
(If you are about to say "how about cutting government spending", I want a list of "cut X, which has downside Y but will save Z a year", where the total of all the Zs is in the high tens of billions a year.)
Amazingly people still don't get that if we cut public services then things like demotivated staff without experienced colleagues around them might release the wrong prisoner from time to time.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
If the government gets tax revenue from house price inflation, it has zero interest in taking steps to curb that inflation. That obvious conflict of interest will inevitably lead to bad policy making and disadvantage those wanting a home.
It is precisely the same conflict of interest created by the tax revenues from ever higher City bonuses and profits. It blinded the government to how those profits and bonuses arose and the dangers that activity posed.
The obvious thing to do IMO is to have higher rate council tax bands for expensive properties rather than yet another tax which will distort the market.
(I meant a 1% charge on all properties to replace Council Tax)
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
0.5% is reckoned to be equivalent to replacing Council Tax.
At those figures, I would be paying about the same as Council Tax now and the scheme would raise about £45 billion but that leaves the £15 billion or so from Stamp Duty. If you want to abolish that as well, you'd need a 0.75% figure.
The other question is if you take a property value as at, for example, 1st April 2027 as your starting point, how will you change the tax in future years - periodic revaluations (3 years) would seem best but I suspect the cop out will be some measure of house price inflation which won't take into account regional variations in property values.
You'd also need to look at land values with or without planning permission.
The best solution to this which I think I read on here was something like you self declare the value but if the value is out of whack upon various trigger events you get penalised so there’s an incentive to be accurate.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
About threefold for Chateau Romford. Very unpleasant, but the right sort of scale for what needs to be done. And I doubt anyone has got a better idea.
(If you are about to say "how about cutting government spending", I want a list of "cut X, which has downside Y but will save Z a year", where the total of all the Zs is in the high tens of billions a year.)
Would be a slight increase for me but I am not that arsed.
BTW I see that Tom Hayes (of LIBOR fame) says he is going to sue UBS for $400 million or some equally nonsensical sum..
There is quite a lot I know and could say about that young man. But to save @TSE's blood pressure I won't.
I will merely point out this rather important part of the SC judgment which ruled that the judge had misdirected the jury in a legal issue which should have been a matter of fact for the jury. It's from paragraph 9 -
"In each case there was ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to defraud."
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
If the government gets tax revenue from house price inflation, it has zero interest in taking steps to curb that inflation. That obvious conflict of interest will inevitably lead to bad policy making and disadvantage those wanting a home.
It is precisely the same conflict of interest created by the tax revenues from ever higher City bonuses and profits. It blinded the government to how those profits and bonuses arose and the dangers that activity posed.
The obvious thing to do IMO is to have higher rate council tax bands for expensive properties rather than yet another tax which will distort the market.
(I meant a 1% charge on all properties to replace Council Tax)
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
You'll probably find that the bike light manufacturers are producing lights that meet regulations in their whole market, so lights sold here will meet German regs. There may be some lag as they sell off old stock. So it'll just be those bought off Ali-express that meet no regs.
I seem to be an outlier here. I much prefer LED headlights. I don't get blinded by them and I can see much better with them. My wife certainly struggles with non LED lights.
I have 3 cars with different light technology:
Top of the range Sportage: LEDs that self adjust. They are brilliant, in more ways than one. The self adjustment is very good indeed. Only downside is when I move to another car I may forget. I have never been flashed.
Bottom of the range Picanto: Good, but I must remember to adjust for oncoming traffic.
Cobra: Utterly useless. 1973 technology. Old fashion beams which I swear make the road darker. Non beam even worse. Have to use a switch about 50cm from my steering wheel so if I need to put on and off regularly I have to steer one handed. But then I didn't buy it for night driving so I rarely use them. It also never goes out in the rain, because I value my life.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
Anyone with a £3m house is likely to have millions in savings, pensions and investments.
The number of people with £3m houses is tiny and those that do without having the other financial assets is a tiny number of a tiny number.
And those that do can always, to use an old phrase, get on their bike and look for a house they can afford.
It shouldn't be hard as it would include about 99% of the country.
A lot of assumptions you are making there.
For example, take someone who is 70 now and bought their “forever home” when they were 50. A £1.6m property (probably with a large mortgage) in 2005 is worth £2.95m today according to Nationwide.
Absolutely not clear that they would have “millions” in investments especially as, if they did, they would have been hit by the 2008 crash when they were at peak equity exposure and then have been increasingly bond heavy coming into the tech boom.
But, as always with my posts, I’m interested in what is right for the economy and fair for the taxpayer vs hitting people that I am jealous of.
The way you casually talk about buying a £1.6m property in 2005 shows how niche your example is.
Incidentally someone taking out a large mortgage in 2005 would have benefitted from over a decade of ZIRP, which they wouldn't have expected when they took the mortgage.
And for someone taking out a large mortgage they would have had to have a large income - so large income with lower mortgage payments than expected gives scope for extra saving and investing.
There are a lot of vocal people, not to mention cash-poor pensioners in London who care quite a lot about a supposed mansion tax.
"Cash poor" is just a roundabout way of saying... rich.
Most of these pensioners have not earned their £2 million houses at all; it's just pure luck that prices have exploded in places like London. If their cash flow means they have to downsize, they are still going to be sat on a huge pile of unearned wealth most of which will never see the tax man.
It doesn't sound like my perfect policy but better than nothing.
Let’s put some numbers on it for clarity. Using a £3m house as per the daily mail articles, generating a liability of £10k p.a.
Assuming that the pensioner can’t afford this increase in outgoings they can their house right?
The buyer needs to find £10k pa out of taxed income, which probably means they will take £400k off the price (£400k x 5% = 20k pre tax income = £10k post tax income).
So the pensioner’s house is sellable at £2.6m (possibly a bit more because the buyer would have lower tax on a £2.6m house).
Estate agent and legal fees and moving expenses of 3% so net proceeds of about £2.5m
Let’s say they downsize to a £2m house because they can’t afford the additional tax on a larger property.
That’s a further £150k in stamp duty.
Which means that they end up with a £2m house and £350k in cash as a result of the downsize.
An effective tax rate of 65% and, I suspect, will blow a hole in many people’s retirement plans.
Property tax is messed up in the UK. But it shouldn’t just be a pot for a populist tax raid on “the rich”. They should replace stamp duty and council tax with an annual charge on all properties including a rollover relief.
I agree. A flat 1% charge and bin Stamp Duty.
But what you've described there is someone ending up with £2.4 million in assets - which is what a £3 million house was worth as recently as 2016. It's difficult to generate much sympathy for someone with untaxed unearned income of £600,000 in less than 10 years purely due to house price inflation.
I don’t recognise the 20% increase in house prices since 2016 - I bought my house then and the value is more or less. But let’s use your stats as the basis for the calculation: if the property had been worth £2.4m in 2016 and kept pace with inflation it would be worth £3.3m today.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
How on earth has their standard of living fallen? They've made £600k, tax free. They could sell up, move to Greenock, spend their entire retirement going on £350k worth of cruises, and still pass on a £2 million house (which they probably bought for £2 and a twix in the 70s).
This is WFP all over again.
Because a £2m house is worth less than a £3m house. It may be smaller, not have a garden, be in a less nice area, whatever. All of those factor into standard of living
Less cleaning and gardening to do. Might be more important than the extra space even if the owners don't realise that pre move.
A good bet is the percentage win for Zohan Mamdani for New York Mayor. Unless another black man is seen in a TV commercial this should be big news next week
The win is a certainty at 1/33 but the vote shares are interestinhg.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Ad in the rise in the height of headlights (bigger, taller cars, SUVs etc) and the brighter lights and travelling on A roads at night can be a real pain in the arse. The brightness of even dipped lights can be an issue.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Vehicle lighting, including light aim, is already tested as part of the MOT.
If these are after-market changes then the car owner will swap them in and out to pass the MOT, so it may catch some of the numpties but not all
At least some of the problem is height - if I have a pickup truck or a big SUV behind me, their lights are pretty much at my eye level in my hatchback.
Don't have the same issue with lorries/buses, but their lights tend to be much lower down. I have no data to support this - a lived experience insight.
Presumably their headlights should be at a steeper down angle?
I've realised my mistake, it would be OK if they were keeping a safe distance but they're keeping a pick-up truck/SUV distance.
According to Savils, the total value of ALL property in the UK is £9 trillion so a 1% cross the board tax on that would raise £90 billion which is decent.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
About threefold for Chateau Romford. Very unpleasant, but the right sort of scale for what needs to be done. And I doubt anyone has got a better idea.
(If you are about to say "how about cutting government spending", I want a list of "cut X, which has downside Y but will save Z a year", where the total of all the Zs is in the high tens of billions a year.)
The real problem is that government seems, collectively and at every level, to have lost control of costs.
Hiring hotels enbloc should have been the cheap solution- but someone they ended up paying *more* than the price of booking individual rooms, in some cases.
This is a pattern repeated all over the place. There is no money, but when there is, we pay for 150 mile taxi rides.
There is a mentality here - which we saw in the discussion of the British Library catalogue (lack of). Even some people here couldn't get their heads round a cheap solution - it *has* to cost 10s or 100s of millions.
An example on the way is Digital ID. Which won't save anything over physical cards, by the way. The billions will be spent on a hyper elaborate system of databases which will provide note work for the largest consultancies in the land, will involve all the data ending up in the US. And will breach EU law - so they will be really, really unhappy about their citizens data going into it. See Northern Ireland.
To sort this out isn't sexy. There won't be a cut in costs of 20% by lunchtime tomorrow.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Ad in the rise in the height of headlights (bigger, taller cars, SUVs etc) and the brighter lights and travelling on A roads at night can be a real pain in the arse. The brightness of even dipped lights can be an issue.
Which is ridiculous because articulated lorry headlights are typically well aimed and don’t blind me in my Polo. Tesla are by far the worst, it’s like looking into the sun.
The biggest union representing federal workers urged Democrats in Congress to end the ongoing U.S. government shutdown. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called for the passage of a stopgap funding measure that Republicans have proposed
Doubtful. I think a temporary fix is unlikely (see below), and Trump is nowhere near actually negotiating with the Democrats.
Tanden: The difference between this cr and every other past cr is this president goes behind the back to just cut whatever he wants. So the truth is, you can't even make a deal.
Fields: Schumer voted for this cr
Tanden: And afterwards, Russ Vought just cut willy nilly. So for the dignity of the senate and for the house, they actually have to come to an agreement on funding the government, which means Russ Vought doesn't just get to do whatever he wants. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1982999671716110614
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Everyone with a NI number that ends in an odd number has to give all their wealth and future income to the person with the nearest NI ending in an even number?
My NINO ends in a capital letter. And a small but real percentage of the electorate have no NINO.
(Incidentally I'm not sure NINOs are completely random; wartime identity card numbers certainly weren't, any more than car registration alphanumerics are today.)
They are not. The initial two letters are time-related, but not attached to a particular year. (People starting NE are about the same age as me, but not necessarily born in 1965) The final letter is related to which week of the 4-week cycle your employer would have to pay your stamp. Not sure how the numbers were handed out but I suspect blocks were issued to different social security offices each of which probably issued them sequentially.
Additionally, NINOs can be reused over time for different people.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
Lammy is a useless pompous ass and could not run a bath.
The trouble is I see a lot of these "my man/woman just handed our mortal enemy their arse on a plate" posts on Twitter, and they're usually anything but. Just the usual argie-bargy of political argument and pumping up the troops for the fan base.
I'd need much more to be convinced for David Lammy. Although maybe for 100/1 it doesn't matter.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Vehicle lighting, including light aim, is already tested as part of the MOT.
If these are after-market changes then the car owner will swap them in and out to pass the MOT, so it may catch some of the numpties but not all
At least some of the problem is height - if I have a pickup truck or a big SUV behind me, their lights are pretty much at my eye level in my hatchback.
Don't have the same issue with lorries/buses, but their lights tend to be much lower down. I have no data to support this - a lived experience insight.
Presumably their headlights should be at a steeper down angle?
I've realised my mistake, it would be OK if they were keeping a safe distance but they're keeping a pick-up truck/SUV distance.
In order to achieve the same distance as lower-placed light I guess they will end up having an angle that hits eye-level even if they are at a safe distance?
A good bet is the percentage win for Zohan Mamdani for New York Mayor. Unless another black man is seen in a TV commercial this should be big news next week
The win is a certainty at 1/33 but the vote shares are interestinhg.
My favourite is 55-60% at 4/1 with Ladbrokes
It’s going to be more fun betting on how many people leave New York for Florida in the next 18 months.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Why's it taken so long? This has been a problem for many years.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Everyone with a NI number that ends in an odd number has to give all their wealth and future income to the person with the nearest NI ending in an even number?
My NINO ends in a capital letter. And a small but real percentage of the electorate have no NINO.
(Incidentally I'm not sure NINOs are completely random; wartime identity card numbers certainly weren't, any more than car registration alphanumerics are today.)
They are not. The initial two letters are time-related, but not attached to a particular year. (People starting NE are about the same age as me, but not necessarily born in 1965) The final letter is related to which week of the 4-week cycle your employer would have to pay your stamp. Not sure how the numbers were handed out but I suspect blocks were issued to different social security offices each of which probably issued them sequentially.
Additionally, NINOs can be reused over time for different people.
How odd, given that lots of folk don't have the unique tax reference number, and because executors need to be able to use them after death for periods of one to several years (and indeed more in some cases).
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Why's it taken so long? This has been a problem for many years.
That YouGov poll. The Lib Dem vote is concentrated in 100 -120 seats. This poll suggest they would win at least 100 of those, hey ho they become the official opposition from fifth place!
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
A good bet is the percentage win for Zohan Mamdani for New York Mayor. Unless another black man is seen in a TV commercial this should be big news next week
The win is a certainty at 1/33 but the vote shares are interestinhg.
My favourite is 55-60% at 4/1 with Ladbrokes
It’s going to be more fun betting on how many people leave New York for Florida in the next 18 months.
Michelle Mone got in early, can she be added to the total?
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
There’s nothing to enforce. These lights are road legal if OEM fit. They also test them as part of the MOT and will fail a car if it does not meet the criteria.
Change the spec to appease a few complainants by all means but the reality is it is not an overnight fix, there’d be an,out of compliance and validation tests and would be very hard to apply retrospectively.
I worked in vehicle lighting for a few years up in Cannock and in Brum and these lights have to meet strict criteria to be able to be used on the road including the position of the beam.
Most (all?) cars have the ability to change the angle for the headlights (I think in response to loading). Do we think that some drivers raise them in order to see better and they get picked up and adjusted at MOT time? Then raised again by the driver?
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
Though tactical voting was how Carney's Liberals came from behind to beat Poilievre's Conservatives in the Canadian election earlier this year.
Second ballot votes helped the left and Macron's centrist block overhaul the first round lead for Le Pen's party in the French legislative election last year.
Plaid won the Caerphilly by election with Labour tactical votes to beat Reform last week too.
Jenrick and probably Kemi would back a Farage minority government on confidence and supply
A Cleverly led Conservatives likely would not
That's an interesting point and I think I know on which side of that fence you sit.
However, IF the Conservatives join an anti-Reform tactical vote, that means accepting in some constituencies Conservative voters should vote Labour if the main aim is to stop Reform. In the past, you've been, let's say, amenable to that message in Scotland as an anti-SNP tactic but at Westminster, it's different.
The second part of this is IF the arithmetic after the election means the only way to stop a Reform minority Government is to support (via C&S) a Labour or Lab-LD Government, how would Cleverly play it?
Reform need to focus on the small boats problem, with a practical reform programme, but avoid elephant traps on race. At the same time, they need to put forward a competent team and a credible economic offer.
Without it I'd expect them to clock 25%+ in a GE campaign, but they wouldn't win it.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Would it be any good for the country though?
Good morning, everyone.
It would be good for half the country.
For a while.
OK
1) Merging employee NI into Income tax. Sort out the cliff edges while we are at it. Exemption for lower rate pensioners, so only pensioners with income greater than 50K are affected. 2) As part of this, enact the quadruple lock. Pensions are the same as the Tax Allowance. The Tax Allowance is the same as the pension. Note that as part of the tax rework, we get rid of the removal of the personal allowance - replaced with higher tax rate. The idea is simplification - fixed allowance, 2-3 tax bands, the end. 3) Old age benefits go in the blender. Come out simplified and taxable. 4) Larger fines for illegal employment, split with the employee. Plus indefinite leave to remain if they need it. Make layering with contractors legally non-protective of the employer. 5) Subsidies/tax breaks on *delivery* of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, UK car production, UK green steel production etc. Scaled to UK content - if you make in China and add a sticker in the UK, you get 0%. 6) UK space program. Strand one - liquid fuel rocket, reusable first stage. Strand Two, liquid fueled rocket, both stages reusable. Strand three - mobile, solid fueled rocket, called the Black Shrike. All payment will be on delivery of working, to fixed prices based on other countries programs. Big And Expensive can go cry. 7) Steadily increase the training capacity for medics by *at least* population growth+1% per year. If this means temporarily sending UK people abroad to train, fine,
Laying Farage is the better bet, as a caretaker role won’t trigger the payout and laying Farage covers every eventuality other than a still implausible whole sequence of events
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Vehicle lighting, including light aim, is already tested as part of the MOT.
If these are after-market changes then the car owner will swap them in and out to pass the MOT, so it may catch some of the numpties but not all
At least some of the problem is height - if I have a pickup truck or a big SUV behind me, their lights are pretty much at my eye level in my hatchback.
Don't have the same issue with lorries/buses, but their lights tend to be much lower down. I have no data to support this - a lived experience insight.
Presumably their headlights should be at a steeper down angle?
I've realised my mistake, it would be OK if they were keeping a safe distance but they're keeping a pick-up truck/SUV distance.
In order to achieve the same distance as lower-placed light I guess they will end up having an angle that hits eye-level even if they are at a safe distance?
AI tells me that "dipped headlights should be aimed at 30-40m ahead of the vehicle which is safe distance at 35mph."
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
Fifty years ago politics was simply capital vs labour. Now its more around age and education. Why? The economy has changed to a knowledge economy rather than a widget making one.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
The most interesting poll I saw recently was one that showed that the only section of the population that Labour has a clear lead among, is the privately-educated.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Voting Green makes no tactical sense. Ergo, the Greens will be squeezed, if Reform are on c.30%, in 2029. I’d expect half those currently saying they will vote Green to support Labour, on the day.
The Lib Dem vote is concentrated in 120 seats. Outside those seats, their support will remain minute. Conversely, Labour supporters in those 120 seats will continue to vote tactically for the Lib Dem’s.
In Red Wall seats, the Thames Estuary, and the West Country, I’d expect the Conservative vote to collapse, in favour of Reform. Elsewhere, their support should hold up better.
I don’t expect much tactical voting in favour of the Conservatives, to keep out Reform.
It could be very hard to form a stable government next time.
It might be Reform minority or a Labour/LD C&S, depending on how the cards fall.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Same, it's the reason I've pretty much stopped driving at night and I drive vehicles with normal headlights that can be seen from the moon even before I put them in beam.
The usual question arises, though. Enforcement with no traffic policemen - how?
Clearly making the default safer is better - just like default speed limits in Wales which are delivering excellent results - but a significant % of vehicles are already out there with these already, so the cat is out of the bag.
MOT test? Incidentally, my Sainsbury's lift-giver swears by the anti-glare glasses that you recommended.
Vehicle lighting, including light aim, is already tested as part of the MOT.
If these are after-market changes then the car owner will swap them in and out to pass the MOT, so it may catch some of the numpties but not all
At least some of the problem is height - if I have a pickup truck or a big SUV behind me, their lights are pretty much at my eye level in my hatchback.
Don't have the same issue with lorries/buses, but their lights tend to be much lower down. I have no data to support this - a lived experience insight.
I don’t seem to have a problem with lights behind me. It’s oncoming traffic that is an issue.
Modern cars have a night dimmer built into the rear view mirror
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
My main reservation about Labour (and I'm still chair of my CLP) is the negative bias - I largely agree, but I'm genuinely unsure what we are trying to achieve in the long term. The Greens don't seem to have seriously considered the choices of actual power, and still project themselves as a pressure group. Your Party? Maybe.
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Would it be any good for the country though?
Good morning, everyone.
It would be good for half the country.
For a while.
OK
1) Merging employee NI into Income tax. Sort out the cliff edges while we are at it. Exemption for lower rate pensioners, so only pensioners with income greater than 50K are affected. 2) As part of this, enact the quadruple lock. Pensions are the same as the Tax Allowance. The Tax Allowance is the same as the pension. Note that as part of the tax rework, we get rid of the removal of the personal allowance - replaced with higher tax rate. The idea is simplification - fixed allowance, 2-3 tax bands, the end. 3) Old age benefits go in the blender. Come out simplified and taxable. 4) Larger fines for illegal employment, split with the employee. Plus indefinite leave to remain if they need it. Make layering with contractors legally non-protective of the employer. 5) Subsidies/tax breaks on *delivery* of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, UK car production, UK green steel production etc. Scaled to UK content - if you make in China and add a sticker in the UK, you get 0%. 6) UK space program. Strand one - liquid fuel rocket, reusable first stage. Strand Two, liquid fueled rocket, both stages reusable. Strand three - mobile, solid fueled rocket, called the Black Shrike. All payment will be on delivery of working, to fixed prices based on other countries programs. Big And Expensive can go cry. 7) Steadily increase the training capacity for medics by *at least* population growth+1% per year. If this means temporarily sending UK people abroad to train, fine,
that's the start.
You'd get over half the pb-ers I think. If Labour or the Tories tried it however their rating would continue to fall or flatline.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
The difference between Your Party and the Greens is that the latter is a party made up of middle-class utopians, which appeals to a demographic that is spread thinly across the entire country. Your Party on the other hand are rooted in a community with a far more realistic grasp of the nature of power and the getting of it.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
Fifty years ago politics was simply capital vs labour. Now its more around age and education. Why? The economy has changed to a knowledge economy rather than a widget making one.
The real problem is that the New Economy is a combination of knowledge and widget making.
At one space launch company in the US, they found a design problem, late in the week. On the Monday, the ex-NASA guy had a presentation on the problem. A bunch of other people at the table had fixes - including several who prototyped the solution on lathes, mills & 3D printers at home. They literally put hardware on the table - not production ready, but a physical example of what the fix could look like.
I have unusually sensitive eyes and driving at night is becoming a highly unpleasant experience. Not only are many modern headlights far too bright (in some cases clearly illegally bright) but too few people seem to know how to use the dipper.
Yes, it's a problem for me too, but it includes those blinding flashing lights on bicycles. They should be illegal, but can't see anything being done about them.
In Germany they have specific rules about bike lights - we could have the same given they are often higher than car lights and some brands are approaching the same brightness - mine are 900 lumen versus 1,500 in my car.
But frankly the risk is much higher for the cyclist in not being seen, so there's no chance they'll try to restrict the lights.
Since 2005, flashing bicycle lights are permitted to be used as sole lights, provided the light flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1-4Hz).
I think in Germany it's more about beam direction.
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
I try to run at least one flashing and one constant front and rear. Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed. It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
I once encountered a cyclist with only a flashing white light *at the back*. I saw him, fair enough, but it took me a while to work out his speed and direction, on an unlit windy country road. Can't imagine what he was thinking. Surely rear lights should be red.
I'm always shocked when I encounter cyclists at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes. Usually kids.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Would it be any good for the country though?
Good morning, everyone.
It would be good for half the country.
For a while.
OK
1) Merging employee NI into Income tax. Sort out the cliff edges while we are at it. Exemption for lower rate pensioners, so only pensioners with income greater than 50K are affected. 2) As part of this, enact the quadruple lock. Pensions are the same as the Tax Allowance. The Tax Allowance is the same as the pension. Note that as part of the tax rework, we get rid of the removal of the personal allowance - replaced with higher tax rate. The idea is simplification - fixed allowance, 2-3 tax bands, the end. 3) Old age benefits go in the blender. Come out simplified and taxable. 4) Larger fines for illegal employment, split with the employee. Plus indefinite leave to remain if they need it. Make layering with contractors legally non-protective of the employer. 5) Subsidies/tax breaks on *delivery* of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, UK car production, UK green steel production etc. Scaled to UK content - if you make in China and add a sticker in the UK, you get 0%. 6) UK space program. Strand one - liquid fuel rocket, reusable first stage. Strand Two, liquid fueled rocket, both stages reusable. Strand three - mobile, solid fueled rocket, called the Black Shrike. All payment will be on delivery of working, to fixed prices based on other countries programs. Big And Expensive can go cry. 7) Steadily increase the training capacity for medics by *at least* population growth+1% per year. If this means temporarily sending UK people abroad to train, fine,
that's the start.
You'd get over half the pb-ers I think. If Labour or the Tories tried it however their rating would continue to fall or flatline.
I'm not so sure. What people want is change and things getting done.
7) should be a popular policy, for example. 4) is about going after the scum who exploit. 5) is an industrial policy that deals with the issue of state subsidies in every other country.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
Though tactical voting was how Carney's Liberals came from behind to beat Poilievre's Conservatives in the Canadian election earlier this year.
Second ballot votes helped the left and Macron's centrist block overhaul the first round lead for Le Pen's party in the French legislative election last year.
Plaid won the Caerphilly by election with Labour tactical votes to beat Reform last week too.
Jenrick and probably Kemi would back a Farage minority government on confidence and supply
A Cleverly led Conservatives likely would not
That's an interesting point and I think I know on which side of that fence you sit.
However, IF the Conservatives join an anti-Reform tactical vote, that means accepting in some constituencies Conservative voters should vote Labour if the main aim is to stop Reform. In the past, you've been, let's say, amenable to that message in Scotland as an anti-SNP tactic but at Westminster, it's different.
The second part of this is IF the arithmetic after the election means the only way to stop a Reform minority Government is to support (via C&S) a Labour or Lab-LD Government, how would Cleverly play it?
Cleverly would tell Conservative MPs to abstain
You of all people should know that the monarch decides who to ask for form a government, and it then becomes a question of whether or not a majority wants to bring them down
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whacking great logical fallacy right there. Can't you spot it?
The election probably comes down to how tactical the LLG block is willing to be to stop Reform (including even where it wants to be tactical can it actually know when to vote Green vs Labour vs LD).
Bit depressing if the main thing the left-of-centre parties are trying to do is stop another party winning, instead of trying to positively win themselves. Would the Tories with 50-75 seats prop up a Reform minority?
What the left of centre parties do is different to what the LLG voters do. An ex Cameroon Conservative may well be in the LLG block as is an always voted Labour Brownite, as are Corbynites and committed Greens.
Good luck with finding a single unifying winning policy platform for that lot.
I think I could have a go at creating a policy platform that 50% of the electorate would vote for.
Would it be any good for the country though?
Good morning, everyone.
It would be good for half the country.
For a while.
OK
1) Merging employee NI into Income tax. Sort out the cliff edges while we are at it. Exemption for lower rate pensioners, so only pensioners with income greater than 50K are affected. 2) As part of this, enact the quadruple lock. Pensions are the same as the Tax Allowance. The Tax Allowance is the same as the pension. Note that as part of the tax rework, we get rid of the removal of the personal allowance - replaced with higher tax rate. The idea is simplification - fixed allowance, 2-3 tax bands, the end. 3) Old age benefits go in the blender. Come out simplified and taxable. 4) Larger fines for illegal employment, split with the employee. Plus indefinite leave to remain if they need it. Make layering with contractors legally non-protective of the employer. 5) Subsidies/tax breaks on *delivery* of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, UK car production, UK green steel production etc. Scaled to UK content - if you make in China and add a sticker in the UK, you get 0%. 6) UK space program. Strand one - liquid fuel rocket, reusable first stage. Strand Two, liquid fueled rocket, both stages reusable. Strand three - mobile, solid fueled rocket, called the Black Shrike. All payment will be on delivery of working, to fixed prices based on other countries programs. Big And Expensive can go cry. 7) Steadily increase the training capacity for medics by *at least* population growth+1% per year. If this means temporarily sending UK people abroad to train, fine,
that's the start.
You'd get over half the pb-ers I think. If Labour or the Tories tried it however their rating would continue to fall or flatline.
I'm not so sure. What people want is change and things getting done.
7) should be a popular policy, for example. 4) is about going after the scum who exploit. 5) is an industrial policy that deals with the issue of state subsidies in every other country.
1 - which funds a lot of it has lots of influential losers with a high propensity to vote. The winners don't win directly, and its complex, so mostly don't even notice it has happened.
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
Fifty years ago politics was simply capital vs labour. Now its more around age and education. Why? The economy has changed to a knowledge economy rather than a widget making one.
Knowledge of what though.
Applied technical knowledge ** is usually much more useful than educational knowledge.
So we now have increasing numbers of urban based, indebted, educated proles with little future as the vote base for radical leftist parties.
** which includes electricians and plumbers at one end and doctors and engineers at the other.
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Imagine the fuss about representation if only one in fifty actors in adverts were non white, and how much value would be given to the argument that it didn’t matter because they are just works of fiction that aren’t meant to be representative.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
It amazes me that people make this argument. It has always seemed to me like they think they’re making a really clever point while missing the blindingly obvious.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
It’s one of those arguments that people make to feel good about themselves.
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
I've never seen a fully convincing narrative as to why, though. The upper middle class (outside a very narrow intelligensia) used to be anything but.
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
Fifty years ago politics was simply capital vs labour. Now its more around age and education. Why? The economy has changed to a knowledge economy rather than a widget making one.
Knowledge of what though.
Applied technical knowledge ** is usually much more useful than educational knowledge.
So we now have increasing numbers of urban based, indebted, educated proles with little future as the vote base for radical leftist parties.
** which includes electricians and plumbers at one end and doctors and engineers at the other.
I am amazed how little thought we give to what we teach. We are happier to base it on what was taught 150 years ago rather than what is relevant for today, and tomorrows, worlds.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Interesting question? Would we prefer a Corbyn/Foot type government or Farage/Trump type of Government?
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty
A Channel 4 study found that 51% of adverts featured black people compared to them being 4% of the population. Maybe that's what Kruger was talking about.
Whacking great logical fallacy right there. Can't you spot it?
I think it's incomplete information rather than a logical fallacy. We need to know the average number of people in an advert for one. And also the average number of black people in an advert.
Labour and the Tories now tied and only just ahead of the Greens and LDs shows that both the main parties are finding it difficult to distinguish themselves. Labour are losing votes to their left to the Greens and to the centre to the LDs and the Tories have already lost the right to Reform and under Kemi are losing centrist voters to the LDs as well.
Reform ahead clearly but only on 27% so still very vulnerable to anti Farage tactical voting
It's a fascinating time to be involved in politics! There is a very simple message from the electorate - they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it any more. The party who can offer the most convincing fix for the mess will win.
You don't think the winner will be the Party offering the most attractive illusion?
I think there are two more cycles: Reform and then radical left (Green or Sultana) And then we may consider facing up to our problems. But we are not at rock bottom yet.
Radical Left would be apocalyptic.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
Which is why thinking that Reform is a free roll of the dice is stupidly dangerous.
Comments
The question is why they don't, then you remember that they are so devoid of talent that Matt Vickers has a senior role...
Anyway, there is a live debate about what's safer - flashing lights or constant. The former last 10x longer on battery and in daytime running you definitely want flashing for long distance visibility.
I appreciate they cause some drivers issues but the number of times I've nearly been hit despite lights + high vis + reflectors means I would never advocate for restricting their use. The consequences are fatal if you're not seen and drivers should slow down if they are struggling to see (or get to the optician ASAP).
RFM: 27% (+1)
LAB: 17% (-3)
CON: 17% (=)
GRN: 16% (+1)
LDM: 15% (=)
Yougov. 26-27 Oct.
The number of people with £3m houses is tiny and those that do without having the other financial assets is a tiny number of a tiny number.
And those that do can always, to use an old phrase, get on their bike and look for a house they can afford.
It shouldn't be hard as it would include about 99% of the country.
So their standard of living has declined in real terms and you are planning to tax them further?
Additionally they would need to compromise on the property as a result of the transaction: size, location, amenities (eg garden), whatever.
So they would have a lower standard of living and a massive loss of value in order to facilitate a the treasury getting £150k upfront plus £10k p.a. going forward.
That doesn’t seem equitable or well thought through.
On a 1% charge, I reckon the new property tax would be about double what we currently pay on Council Tax at Stodge Towers - for many others, it would be much more.
And surely you downsize to liberate cash and spend it on enjoying yourself.
The problem electorally with these changes is you get far less credit from the beneficiaries than you do blame from the losers - so the big changes we need, never actually happen and we tinker along the edges instead.
All victims of cyberattacks this year.
The common factor - all three had their key IT systems outsourced to Tata Consultancy Services.
https://x.com/uk_daniel_card/status/1982850922507096556
This is WFP all over again.
It''s so old I've just seen it on the History Channel.
For example, take someone who is 70 now and bought their “forever home” when they were 50. A £1.6m property (probably with a large mortgage) in 2005 is worth £2.95m today according to Nationwide.
Absolutely not clear that they would have “millions” in investments especially as, if they did, they would have been hit by the 2008 crash when they were at peak equity exposure and then have been increasingly bond heavy coming into the tech boom.
But, as always with my posts, I’m interested in what is right for the economy and fair for the taxpayer vs hitting people that I am jealous of.
It’s like saying Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are worth £300bn each, so should pay £3bn a year in tax on the shares that would crash if they actually tried to sell them in those quantities, and over the course of a couple of decades would take half of their net worth.
It is precisely the same conflict of interest created by the tax revenues from ever higher City bonuses and profits. It blinded the government to how those profits and bonuses arose and the dangers that activity posed.
The obvious thing to do IMO is to have higher rate council tax bands for expensive properties rather than yet another tax which will distort the market.
So it'll just be those bought off Ali-express that meet no regs.
The whiter the area the more likely it is to have a Reform problem. Immigration isn’t the problem, otherwise you’d get Reform in more diverse areas - it’s fear of change among older people.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3m4akj5dc6k2c
The other question is if you take a property value as at, for example, 1st April 2027 as your starting point, how will you change the tax in future years - periodic revaluations (3 years) would seem best but I suspect the cop out will be some measure of house price inflation which won't take into account regional variations in property values.
You'd also need to look at land values with or without planning permission.
(If you are about to say "how about cutting government spending", I want a list of "cut X, which has downside Y but will save Z a year", where the total of all the Zs is in the high tens of billions a year.)
Flashing to grab the attention, constant to make it easier to judge distance and speed.
It doesn't help with the significant minority of drivers incapable of judging distances and speeds even in broad daylight but it's a start.
There is quite a lot I know and could say about that young man. But to save @TSE's blood pressure I won't.
I will merely point out this rather important part of the SC judgment which ruled that the judge had misdirected the jury in a legal issue which should have been a matter of fact for the jury. It's from paragraph 9 -
"In each case there was ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty of conspiracy to defraud."
The judgment is here - https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0087_0088_judgment_f9b6ff1bb1.pdf.
Good morning, everyone.
I have 3 cars with different light technology:
Top of the range Sportage: LEDs that self adjust. They are brilliant, in more ways than one. The self adjustment is very good indeed. Only downside is when I move to another car I may forget. I have never been flashed.
Bottom of the range Picanto: Good, but I must remember to adjust for oncoming traffic.
Cobra: Utterly useless. 1973 technology. Old fashion beams which I swear make the road darker. Non beam even worse. Have to use a switch about 50cm from my steering wheel so if I need to put on and off regularly I have to steer one handed. But then I didn't buy it for night driving so I rarely use them. It also never goes out in the rain, because I value my life.
Incidentally someone taking out a large mortgage in 2005 would have benefitted from over a decade of ZIRP, which they wouldn't have expected when they took the mortgage.
And for someone taking out a large mortgage they would have had to have a large income - so large income with lower mortgage payments than expected gives scope for extra saving and investing.
The win is a certainty at 1/33 but the vote shares are interestinhg.
My favourite is 55-60% at 4/1 with Ladbrokes
For a while.
I've realised my mistake, it would be OK if they were keeping a safe distance but they're keeping a pick-up truck/SUV distance.
Hiring hotels enbloc should have been the cheap solution- but someone they ended up paying *more* than the price of booking individual rooms, in some cases.
This is a pattern repeated all over the place. There is no money, but when there is, we pay for 150 mile taxi rides.
There is a mentality here - which we saw in the discussion of the British Library catalogue (lack of). Even some people here couldn't get their heads round a cheap solution - it *has* to cost 10s or 100s of millions.
An example on the way is Digital ID. Which won't save anything over physical cards, by the way. The billions will be spent on a hyper elaborate system of databases which will provide note work for the largest consultancies in the land, will involve all the data ending up in the US. And will breach EU law - so they will be really, really unhappy about their citizens data going into it. See Northern Ireland.
To sort this out isn't sexy. There won't be a cut in costs of 20% by lunchtime tomorrow.
I think a temporary fix is unlikely (see below), and Trump is nowhere near actually negotiating with the Democrats.
Tanden: The difference between this cr and every other past cr is this president goes behind the back to just cut whatever he wants. So the truth is, you can't even make a deal.
Fields: Schumer voted for this cr
Tanden: And afterwards, Russ Vought just cut willy nilly. So for the dignity of the senate and for the house, they actually have to come to an agreement on funding the government, which means Russ Vought doesn't just get to do whatever he wants.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1982999671716110614
I'd need much more to be convinced for David Lammy. Although maybe for 100/1 it doesn't matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
In big urban areas, the British-born population skews towards the very rich, public sector professionals, people working in media, university workers, students. These are all groups that Reform underperforms with - regardless of the number of immigrants.
Reform’s voters skew towards working and lower middle class, the retired, and private sector workers, regardless of the number of immigrants.
London and core cities, like their equivalents across the West, are simply a lot more left wing than their hinterlands are.
The Lib Dem vote is concentrated in 100 -120 seats. This poll suggest they would win at least 100 of those, hey ho they become the official opposition from fifth place!
It's one of the most fascinating political developments of the last 30 years.
Without it I'd expect them to clock 25%+ in a GE campaign, but they wouldn't win it.
1) Merging employee NI into Income tax. Sort out the cliff edges while we are at it. Exemption for lower rate pensioners, so only pensioners with income greater than 50K are affected.
2) As part of this, enact the quadruple lock. Pensions are the same as the Tax Allowance. The Tax Allowance is the same as the pension. Note that as part of the tax rework, we get rid of the removal of the personal allowance - replaced with higher tax rate. The idea is simplification - fixed allowance, 2-3 tax bands, the end.
3) Old age benefits go in the blender. Come out simplified and taxable.
4) Larger fines for illegal employment, split with the employee. Plus indefinite leave to remain if they need it. Make layering with contractors legally non-protective of the employer.
5) Subsidies/tax breaks on *delivery* of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, UK car production, UK green steel production etc. Scaled to UK content - if you make in China and add a sticker in the UK, you get 0%.
6) UK space program. Strand one - liquid fuel rocket, reusable first stage. Strand Two, liquid fueled rocket, both stages reusable. Strand three - mobile, solid fueled rocket, called the Black Shrike. All payment will be on delivery of working, to fixed prices based on other countries programs. Big And Expensive can go cry.
7) Steadily increase the training capacity for medics by *at least* population growth+1% per year. If this means temporarily sending UK people abroad to train, fine,
that's the start.
I think many would change their tune, if they actually got a radically redistributionist left wing government.
It might be Reform minority or a Labour/LD C&S, depending on how the cards fall.
No-one would come out with any private assets intact out the other side, and it'd take us decades to recover, and many of us never would.
At one space launch company in the US, they found a design problem, late in the week. On the Monday, the ex-NASA guy had a presentation on the problem. A bunch of other people at the table had fixes - including several who prototyped the solution on lathes, mills & 3D printers at home. They literally put hardware on the table - not production ready, but a physical example of what the fix could look like.
Can't imagine that in nearly any UK company.
On this year's France cycling trip our sleeper train to Paris from Toulouse got cancelled. The only train we could get got us into Paris at midnight. Although we never planned to cycle at night we had lights just in case, but absolutely never expected to use them at midnight and in Paris. Fortunately we also had tape and attached them to our helmets. As it happened cycling in Paris at night is a damn sight safer than during the day.
7) should be a popular policy, for example. 4) is about going after the scum who exploit. 5) is an industrial policy that deals with the issue of state subsidies in every other country.
Applied technical knowledge ** is usually much more useful than educational knowledge.
So we now have increasing numbers of urban based, indebted, educated proles with little future as the vote base for radical leftist parties.
** which includes electricians and plumbers at one end and doctors and engineers at the other.
Then David Lammy or Diane Abbott mentions it, and is accused of racism by every virtue signaller in town
I appreciate it sounds like a choice of which foot would you like to shoot, but if I had to choose I would go for Corbyn/Foot because although they might be worse at running the economy (maybe?) they aren't obviously destroying the democracy. Further left and of course that is also a possibilty