Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
"Visitors to England from Saskatchewan should prepare themselves for large numbers of people. Despite England being less than one fifth the size of Saskatchewan, it has more than 50 times the population. It may help you to learn the meaning of phrases such as 'excuse me', and 'is this seat taken?'"
OTOH a visitor from Delhi watched the suburban roads from the bus and said it's all so sparsely populated.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
Have to say I don't really get why it's necessary for the police to tell us then race of the attackers once they are in custody. It doesn't really make any difference. If they were still at large of course it would be vital to inform the public. But a "Black British national" doesn't mean anything anyway does it?
I believe it was one black British and one British national of Caribbean descent. I may have it wrong but I interpreted the second as being a naturalised immigrant and the first as being born here?
Both born here, I heard on the radio.
I wonder if we will Shamima one of them back to the Carribean.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
the only thing that changed this years is that EVs are no longer exempt from it.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
Just an unofficial name apparently. I see also that this mag thinks that youy have to be *really* luxury to have to pay it.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
That could make sense as part of a wedge strategy targeting Scottish and Welsh regiments in the British Army. I'm not sure if such a strategy existed.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
Yep, realised my mistake (see my comment above). With CPI it should be about £54k now.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
Just an unofficial name apparently. I see also that this mag thinks that youy have to be *really* luxury to have to pay it.
Given the increased availablility of models of lower cost EVs and increased reliability of second hand cars, I have no objection. I'd also have no objection for that latter reason to more flexibility in use of PIP for a wider range of vehicles - although of course Motability can already be opted out of, and second hand vehicles do not carry VAT in some circs.
In general (RAC Cost of Motoring Index) motoring costs have been flat in real terms for well over a decade, so I think it's time for some Pigou Taxes, used to redirect some investment to alternatives to help people who cannot drive.
The Greens in Scotland had the right idea with 5% of the Transport Budget to Active Travel.
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
The Government doesn't charge VAT on cars purchased through motability - that feeds through to the lease price. On a luxury car, that's a lot more money. If someone can afford a luxury car, that's great - they can also afford the VAT on it.
Is this a real question?
How many vehicles supplied through Motability are luxury cars?
Why should any of the vehicles supplied through motability be luxury cars? Benefits are there to provide necessities that the recipients would not otherwise be able to afford. A BMW isn't that.
It's an interesting straw in the wind this. I was 70/30 that they were going to do the income tax thing, embrace the left, and sod the right - a core vote strategy. But this indicates that they have not abandoned the attempt to win over middle Britain. So perhaps the manifesto breaking tax rises got a little less likely...
Personally, I don’t particularly care if someone tops up the cost of their Motability provided vehicle to get a nicer one. Sounds like capitalism in action to me?
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
NB quick edit: public transport is 0-rated for VAT in the UK. Perhaps this was the original justification for making Motability cars 0-rated to match the rating on public transport?
"Visitors to England from Saskatchewan should prepare themselves for large numbers of people. Despite England being less than one fifth the size of Saskatchewan, it has more than 50 times the population. It may help you to learn the meaning of phrases such as 'excuse me', and 'is this seat taken?'"
OTOH a visitor from Delhi watched the suburban roads from the bus and said it's all so sparsely populated.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
NMR spectrometers…
My bits and pieces don't need to resonate more than they already do, so I can't comment.
(Just to be clear, readers, I have zero knowledge beyond what the words stand for about NMR)
Which may mean you have misinterpreted the first word… MRIs are not called NMRIs when they really ought to be!
Perhaps, but I know a little more about MRIs.
If you know about MRIs then NMR is almost the same. Just a different application. And we expect to get 10 years out of them…
Iirc, the sample chamber is just a very slightly different size.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
This is true. It's a bit odd that we now pay so much more for Car Insurance from firms that are hugely less reliable than they were 30 years ago.
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
The Government doesn't charge VAT on cars purchased through motability - that feeds through to the lease price. On a luxury car, that's a lot more money. If someone can afford a luxury car, that's great - they can also afford the VAT on it.
Is this a real question?
How many vehicles supplied through Motability are luxury cars?
Why should any of the vehicles supplied through motability be luxury cars? Benefits are there to provide necessities that the recipients would not otherwise be able to afford. A BMW isn't that.
It's an interesting straw in the wind this. I was 70/30 that they were going to do the income tax thing, embrace the left, and sod the right - a core vote strategy. But this indicates that they have not abandoned the attempt to win over middle Britain. So perhaps the manifesto breaking tax rises got a little less likely...
Personally, I don’t particularly care if someone tops up the cost of their Motability provided vehicle to get a nicer one. Sounds like capitalism in action to me?
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
Can you buy the Motability cars after x years? Does not having paid VAT leave them at an advantage against people who have paid full VAT when it comes to reselling them?
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
The Government doesn't charge VAT on cars purchased through motability - that feeds through to the lease price. On a luxury car, that's a lot more money. If someone can afford a luxury car, that's great - they can also afford the VAT on it.
Is this a real question?
How many vehicles supplied through Motability are luxury cars?
Why should any of the vehicles supplied through motability be luxury cars? Benefits are there to provide necessities that the recipients would not otherwise be able to afford. A BMW isn't that.
It's an interesting straw in the wind this. I was 70/30 that they were going to do the income tax thing, embrace the left, and sod the right - a core vote strategy. But this indicates that they have not abandoned the attempt to win over middle Britain. So perhaps the manifesto breaking tax rises got a little less likely...
Personally, I don’t particularly care if someone tops up the cost of their Motability provided vehicle to get a nicer one. Sounds like capitalism in action to me?
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
It's a bit like people arguing for free car parking at hospitals - that's great, but why not free public transport to hospital, walking and cycling infrastructure etc etc
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
This is true. It's a bit odd that we now pay so much more for Car Insurance from firms that are hugely less reliable than they were 30 years ago.
Cars are less repairable, I think.
(I pay £210 a year for my old banger. No complaints.)
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
That's fair comment. We'll see what she does.
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
That's fair comment. We'll see what she does.
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Given that public transport is 0-rated, I can see how the argument was originally made that Motabilty should be 0-rated too.
Any top-ups over & above the PIP-payment level should attract the same taxes that everyone else pays though.
It is interesting because it makes it obvious that this is an EU-wide agenda (I don't think the individual countries have just all had the same brainwave) and one that our bureaucrats (including the elected ones) want us involved in, hence Starmer's current efforts.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
(Motability is one scheme, surely?)
I'd need to see the numbers on most cost effective lease period. Would 4 years or 5 years cost more or less money overall?
A problem with limited minimal options is that requirements and needs are very different. One size fits all does not work - what happens to an individual who needs a specialised (eg large) wheelchair?
"Oh you don't fit our tick boxes pulled out of thin air" so eff-off somewhere else will not be legal.
Perhaps if we had invested in mobility infra for the last 50 years the issue would be less acute. But we didn't and essentially force people into motor vehicles, and let the people who are unable to drive go hang. If you try and take a mobility scooter to my local hospital there are staggered pedestrian crossings with the middle island so tight that wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot cross the road (yes, they are on my target list).
I'm not defending the current form, but I reject reform by kneejerk politics. Especially by the kind of bollocks-trading-on-prejudice projected by my MP Lee Anderson. Let's see what RR comes up with.
Really, there's a major element of people being cross that disabled citizens can have a decent lifestyle, isn't there?
AIUI People over pension age aren't eligible for Motability. Unless they've had it before reaching pension age.
Now that actually is an example of MattW's theory. They're pensioners so they're expected to accept less.
Trim motability overall and extend it to pensioners.
It is my understanding that the idea behind Motability was to help people to work, who either have disabilities themselves or are caring for people who have disabilities.
As I have noted, a minefield.
It's notable that the report that started this debate was from the Adam Smith Institute, and one of the things they want is applicability to second hand cars. One element of their alleged savings are related to comparison with average aged British cars, but they don't seem to take into account impact of eg increased breakdowns on disabled people.
To my eye, fairly normal ASI Daily Mail bait, with a few good points mixed in.
Cars are hugely more reliable than they were 30 years ago. A disabled person stuck on the roadside now has a mobile phone, and so on. So the point is well made, but its importance decreases as the years pass.
This is true. It's a bit odd that we now pay so much more for Car Insurance from firms that are hugely less reliable than they were 30 years ago.
Cars are less repairable, I think.
(I pay £210 a year for my old banger. No complaints.)
Well, I can only share my experience. I hadn't owned a car for years, and then ten years ago I did.
Year one - not driven for 20 years, and it's shiny, and it's new. About 1k Years 2-3 - much the same Years 4-5 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure Years 6-7 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure Years 7-8 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure Years 8-9 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
The Government doesn't charge VAT on cars purchased through motability - that feeds through to the lease price. On a luxury car, that's a lot more money. If someone can afford a luxury car, that's great - they can also afford the VAT on it.
Is this a real question?
How many vehicles supplied through Motability are luxury cars?
Why should any of the vehicles supplied through motability be luxury cars? Benefits are there to provide necessities that the recipients would not otherwise be able to afford. A BMW isn't that.
It's an interesting straw in the wind this. I was 70/30 that they were going to do the income tax thing, embrace the left, and sod the right - a core vote strategy. But this indicates that they have not abandoned the attempt to win over middle Britain. So perhaps the manifesto breaking tax rises got a little less likely...
Personally, I don’t particularly care if someone tops up the cost of their Motability provided vehicle to get a nicer one. Sounds like capitalism in action to me?
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
Can you buy the Motability cars after x years? Does not having paid VAT leave them at an advantage against people who have paid full VAT when it comes to reselling them?
No, you’re required to give them back & lease a new one IIRC. Sometimes you can extend the lease on your existing vehicle I think.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
The Government doesn't charge VAT on cars purchased through motability - that feeds through to the lease price. On a luxury car, that's a lot more money. If someone can afford a luxury car, that's great - they can also afford the VAT on it.
Is this a real question?
How many vehicles supplied through Motability are luxury cars?
Why should any of the vehicles supplied through motability be luxury cars? Benefits are there to provide necessities that the recipients would not otherwise be able to afford. A BMW isn't that.
It's an interesting straw in the wind this. I was 70/30 that they were going to do the income tax thing, embrace the left, and sod the right - a core vote strategy. But this indicates that they have not abandoned the attempt to win over middle Britain. So perhaps the manifesto breaking tax rises got a little less likely...
Personally, I don’t particularly care if someone tops up the cost of their Motability provided vehicle to get a nicer one. Sounds like capitalism in action to me?
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
NB quick edit: public transport is 0-rated for VAT in the UK. Perhaps this was the original justification for making Motability cars 0-rated to match the rating on public transport?
One option would be VAT on the price element over £40k, or on the payments above the PIP number.
But then that asks the questions whether the whole shenanigans would save any money AT ALL once all the extra admin costs and extra service costs (more people claiming transport costs to hospital if they have no car, less healthy disabled people because they get out less, poorer health in disabled people because they would be relatively even poorer than they are already etc).
The ASI generated a big scary clickbait number but did a very simplistic analysis, as is their habit.
I am concerned that RR will do her quaking-in-her-boots-at-populist-shouting thing and make some stupid decisions.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
I see it COP30 this week in Brazil. There’s been little fanfare about it in the lead up to it. A few years ago it would have had significant coverage.
Main countries aren’t bothering. Hard to see what it can achieve aside from the regular demand for ‘climate reparations’.
And, yet, the problem is more serious than ever.
It just goes to show how fickle and shallow much opinion is on this.
Musk has spoken quite a bit in the last 48 hours about climate change. I think his view is correct. This doesn’t need to be solved at the cost of all else in the next 5 years, but it needs to have been addressed roughly by the time the century is out.
In truth, man made climate change is rather low down the list for likely causes of civilisational collapse.
That's not really how climate change works though, is it?
It's going to be exceptionally difficult to reverse and, while their is enormous uncertainty about the severity and nature of the ongoing damage, it's almost certainly better value to reduce emissions now than spend billions on flood defences and deal with mass migration from Africa, crop blight etc etc. Or at least it is if you are younger or care about the next few generations.
The same people who were denying climate change existed have now reached a final, late stage of denialism where they insist it's not worth doing anything about. It's pathetic and transparent.
It’s not worth it at the cost of all else, which is the Miliband approach. You do that which is most economic and not that which is not. It’s rather extraordinary by the way to characterise Musk as a climate denialist and rather undermines your opinion on this matter.
I didn't call Musk a denialist, did I? Miliband's approach is almost indistinguishable from the previous government.
Anyway, the logical outcome from this kind of debate is we need to think about investing much more in adaptation. Flooding is the obvious one (particularly SE England).
Dredge the rivers. Build more reservoirs to store the water, so we don't have winter floods and summer droughts every sodding year. Old school actual water management, as banned by the EU's absurd habitats regulations - the ones we no longer have to abide by. Next.
Does dredging rivers not increase floods at the lower end? Hence measures such as increased forest to slow down percolation into said rivers? I thought that was a basic.
It's the same reason we use Sustainable Drainage Systems in new developments.
I'd add reduced water usage as an obvious strategy, We use 25% more than our most efficient European peers (which is usually taken as Denmark).
'I thought that was a basic' is code here for 'I have zero evidence to back my claim up'.
And I would enjoy an explanation as to how reducing water usage is going to result in less flooding.
Efforts to get everyone to take shorter showers etc., as well as being revolting, are absurdly unnecessary in a country with water so abundant that we are discussing flood mitigation strategies. It is a sign of how absurd and perverse the discourse on this has become that it is even raised.
If you don’t have the reservoirs to store the water for when you need it then you can have both flooding and water shortages follow quickly one after the other.
Surely this is obvious?
Yes, it is obvious, that's why I said it.
681mm of rainfall at my allotment last year vs 322 this, for what it's worth
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
Cars last way longer than 10 years. The average car on the UK roads is now 9 years and 10 months old.
My wife's car is pushing 17 now. I did weld up a small hole in the front subframe and change a couple of brake pipes two years ago, and it's had a crank position sensor and a new alternator belt this year, and it's getting due a couple of wishbone ball joints, but it's hardly a wreck. If we keep it (it's getting a bit small for a family of four), I think I can probably eek it out to at least it's 20th birthday.
My previous car was 16 years old when it was written off, still drove like new. The current one is 11, I'm expecting it to do the best part of another ten years.
Other stuff lasts too - gas combi boiler in my house is 17 years old now - I put an expansion vessel in it a couple of years ago, otherwise it's been completely trouble free.
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association, a union representing rail and transport workers, is calling for a security review after the knife attack in Huntingdon.
The union's general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust describes the attack as "appalling".
"Our immediate priority is for the welfare of the injured and all those traumatised by what has happened," she said.
Eslamdoust added: "Transport networks must be safe for everyone, both the travelling public and the staff who serve them.
"We call on the operator and government to act swiftly to review security, to support the affected workers, and to ensure nothing like this happens again.""
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
Cars last way longer than 10 years. The average car on the UK roads is now 9 years and 10 months old.
My wife's car is pushing 17 now. I did weld up a small hole in the front subframe and change a couple of brake pipes two years ago, and it's had a crank position sensor and a new alternator belt this year, and it's getting due a couple of wishbone ball joints, but it's hardly a wreck. If we keep it (it's getting a bit small for a family of four), I think I can probably eek it out to at least it's 20th birthday.
My previous car was 16 years old when it was written off, still drove like new. The current one is 11, I'm expecting it to do the best part of another ten years.
Other stuff lasts too - gas combi boiler in my house is 17 years old now - I put an expansion vessel in it a couple of years ago, otherwise it's been completely trouble free.
Mine is currently 7, was just serviced and I plan to have it last me until 2030 when it should still be under 60k miles unless I go beserk.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
Anything over 40K list and you pay shedload of extra tax for 5 years.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
The matter is, to say the least, capable of multiple viewpoints. The standard statute wording until the 1972 act 'Wales and Monmouthshire' precludes in its language the concept of it being part of Wales. Which inevitably gives rise to the view (in the part of my family history which arises from the Anglophile part of the old county) that the only remaining candidate for its nation is England.
Wikipedia draws a careful balance and is worth a look. The bit I like is:
The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica unambiguously described the county as part of England, but notes that "whenever an act [...] is intended to apply to [Wales] alone, then Wales is always coupled with Monmouthshire". However, most Acts of Parliament listed Monmouthshire as part of England; for example, the Local Government Act 1933 listed both the administrative county of Monmouth and county borough of Newport as part of England.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
Anything over 40K list and you pay shedload of extra tax for 5 years.
Indeedy. It's a thing you opt-in to, like speeding and red light tickets.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
My BMW is 23 years old and trouble free. 150,000 on the clock. I drive in it to the west coast of Ireland and back a few times a year. I don't intend to replace it.
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association, a union representing rail and transport workers, is calling for a security review after the knife attack in Huntingdon.
The union's general secretary Maryam Eslamdoust describes the attack as "appalling".
"Our immediate priority is for the welfare of the injured and all those traumatised by what has happened," she said.
Eslamdoust added: "Transport networks must be safe for everyone, both the travelling public and the staff who serve them.
"We call on the operator and government to act swiftly to review security, to support the affected workers, and to ensure nothing like this happens again.""
Having read the Telegraph piece, I don't see any purchase for the luxury argument except at the margins - as PIP payments to Motability are a basic flat rate for everyone.
Yep - got to say it doesn't make sense - if you want a BMW or similar the driver / leasee gives BMW £10,000 upfront and that upfront payment reduces the amount left so that the PIP payment enough to lease the expensive car..
I can see why people don't like the idea of disabled people driving expensive cars but some people can afford it..
It’s easy to see the problems that might occur more widely, if the only people on the street with a shiny new BMW in the driveway are those “on the sick”, unaffordable by anyone who works a job.
There’s more than enough of a sickness problem already, without incentivising people more to add to it. It’s another example that your average working man sees of “the system” being loaded against him.
The deatils of the scheme are almost irrelevant, it’s the perception that matters.
This is because PIP isn't means-tested, so you can get people with serious money still getting it. The benefit of that is it doesn't provide a dis-incentive to work, but it does mean we are subsiding nice cars for rich (disabled) people.
But those people are entitled to PIP - so the money would be going to them one way or another.
Now the question is do you really want to means test PIP...
They are giving PIP out with chocolate biscuits nowadays and they not only get the car , it is insurance , tax, breakdown UK & Europe , all servicing , tyres etc etc
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
That flies in the face of 40 years' values underlying our laws, and there would be hell to pay - especially since disabled people already have many extra expenses imposed on them at random because of their conditions.
There is, for example, a higher likelihood of poverty:
Disabled people also have lower incomes than average: the Resolution Foundation found in January 2023 that the gap in household income between adults with and without a disability was around 30% including disability benefits and 44% excluding disability benefits in the financial year 2020-21. A third of adults in the lowest household income decile are disabled. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0104/
Potentially there could be nuances, but it's a quagmire. Rachel Reeves will have much trouble not looking like an archetypal Tory. And Labour can't out-Farage Farage, either.
She'd be better off with a targeted approach to scope, rather than hitting everyone on the head with a Timmy Mallett hammer.
"Luxury" Car Tax is ultimate fiscal drag...It was brought in and set at a threshold of £40k.
I can't see Reeves changing this as if she did Labour MPs won't let it fly. There will be too many hard luck stories.
That's not example of fiscal drag, given the luxury car tax was only introduced this year. It's just a new tax.
Huh? I think you are slightly off, there.
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
the only thing that changed this years is that EVs are no longer exempt from it.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
No doubt. It seems that about 10 years is the expectation though.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
Cars last way longer than 10 years. The average car on the UK roads is now 9 years and 10 months old.
My wife's car is pushing 17 now. I did weld up a small hole in the front subframe and change a couple of brake pipes two years ago, and it's had a crank position sensor and a new alternator belt this year, and it's getting due a couple of wishbone ball joints, but it's hardly a wreck. If we keep it (it's getting a bit small for a family of four), I think I can probably eek it out to at least it's 20th birthday.
My previous car was 16 years old when it was written off, still drove like new. The current one is 11, I'm expecting it to do the best part of another ten years.
Other stuff lasts too - gas combi boiler in my house is 17 years old now - I put an expansion vessel in it a couple of years ago, otherwise it's been completely trouble free.
I need to get a grip , I spend a fortune changing every few years.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
This is simply incorrect. Original Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (effectively Act of Union) established Monmouthshire as one of the 13 counties of Wales. It was the second act of 1542 that placed Monmouthshire in an English legal circuit that caused the confusion, and hence the term 'Wales and Monmouthshire' was typically used to provide clarification. This was eventually resolved in 1974 in the Local Government Act which uneqivocally stated that Monmouthshire was in Wales.
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
It was English Democrats Party in 2007. But otherwise accurate.
There is a bit more to it than that. Monmouthshire had two knights of the shire (MPs) like English counties, where as Welsh counties only had one.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
My old Merc lasted for 29 years. A sturdy and faithful car that never once in all that time let me down. I have a framed photo of it on the mantelpiece.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
Caps are not usually an issue on early/mid 80s computers. A cheap composite-to-HDMI converter will let you connect it to a modern TV, although the output will probably look a bit pants because Apple IIs were designed for monochrome NTSC monitors and you get colour fringing and rainbow effects on anything else.
The going rate on ebay for a working Apple II is £300-400, if you feel like selling it.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
The mobility element is.
Just scrap it and scrap taxes on transport so that people can afford transport without a subsidy.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
That was supposed to be case but everybody and their dog can get it now, you just say you have abad back, ADHD, autistic whatever and it is handed out , more than 700 joining everday or week seemingly. Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
That was supposed to be case but everybody and their dog can get it now, you just say you have abad back, ADHD, autistic whatever and it is handed out , more than 700 joining everday or week seemingly. Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
My sister has to use a wheelchair. She does not qualify for PiP.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
The mobility element is.
Just scrap it and scrap taxes on transport so that people can afford transport without a subsidy.
Ah, so you didn't mean abolish PIP. Did you just say that to get some attention?
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
Now down to one attacker on the train, looking more and more like a mental health issue. Tragic that it leads to this much suffering.
That makes a lot more sense. Presumably the other guy clobbered him? But obviously not too much or the perpetrator would have received treatment. Nice of plod to give him a night in the cells if so!
That’s bizarre to hold him for 24 hours when there’s cctv in every carriage and rather a lot of witnesses.
Given the high profile nature of the incident perhaps they wanted to be doubly sure. Also, after the whole Epping migrant saga last week I can understand everything being triple checked before releasing anyone right now.
Something that isn't an Invacar? Not made of shite blue plastic, with no room for anyone or anything else? Got to be punitive, apparently (PB passim).
The government already define it, hence the "luxury car tax". Its something I don't think people have noticed was part of the last budget that it now hits a lot more cars and will add £2.5k to your tax bill over 5 years.
The threshold is now such that if your blinge out your Nissan Qashqui a bit it can tip into luxury car tax territory.....
So we are headed potentially down the "disabled people are not allowed to be like everybody else, and are required to be miserable and have poorer lifestyles" route - at least to some extent.
Having a new car every three years is not normal. I'm a nice middle class boy with nice middle class parents and neither I nor they have ever had a new car.
Disabled people who need modified cars should have one scheme, with the VAT break.
Those who don't can make their own arrangements, with their PIP, and no VAT break.
Most things you would hope to get 10 years out of. Phones don't quite make that. Computers, Washing machines, Dishwashers, Fridges, Boilers... they're all around 10 years.
Cars are too.
My parents had cars that lasted for 17 and 16 years respectively from early 2000s to late 2010s.
No doubt. It seems that about 10 years is the expectation though.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
I have an old Grundig reel to reel tape recorder from 1960. It still plays. The dust on the valves smoke a bit but the sound is quite clear. Dozens of reels. There are recordings of my grandmother telling a long story 65 years ago in a broad Oldham accent; my brother counting to ten aged 3 (he's 67 now); my 14 year old girlfriend singing a song.
I was puzzled how to transfer to a new device and then realised all I needed was my Smartphone on record. I have them to hand. My brother is quite intrigued. And my grandchildren.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
Caps are not usually an issue on early/mid 80s computers. A cheap composite-to-HDMI converter will let you connect it to a modern TV, although the output will probably look a bit pants because Apple IIs were designed for monochrome NTSC monitors and you get colour fringing and rainbow effects on anything else.
The going rate on ebay for a working Apple II is £300-400, if you feel like selling it.
"if you feel like selling it."
I saved a thousand pounds to buy it. At the time I had a part time job in McDonalds - starting wage was 89p an hour. Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights I worked. 5 hours a night. Hard to get rid of such a hard worked for thing.
Modern computers don't seem to last more than 10 to 12 years. But ones from the 80s like the QL and Spectrum still work if you plug them in. Not sure why the difference.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
How many people on the British mainland did the URA (sic) kill.
I'm a bit averse to answer this question, as it implies that casualties in NI don't count. But the function of a statistician is to answer questions, so as follows.
Location Count Belfast East 128 Belfast North 577 Belfast South 213 Belfast West 623 Britain 125 County Antrim 209 County Armagh 477 County Derry 123 County Down 243 County Fermanagh 112 County Tyrone 341 Derry 227 Europe 18 Republic of Ireland 116 TOTAL 3532
So of of the 3532 deaths attributed by Sutton to the Troubles, 125 were on the island of Great Britain
how many were in England, Scotland,Wales
I dont know about Scotland, but l believe there were zero in Wales. There was a story (cant confirm) that IRA had a policy of not targetting Wales - in the 1970s when there seemed to be a bombing every night and there was one bomb in Newport - it was put down to confusion on some maps of the time placing Monmouthshire in England.
And I just searched the CAIN website using Google.
When they first appeared the site was attacked quite hard - especially by Republicans. They claimed it was anti-peace process!
It’s stood the test of time really well - a few, very minor errata over the years. It’s data is definitely of high academic quality - been cited in many, many academic papers on the conflict.
Modern computers don't seem to last more than 10 to 12 years. But ones from the 80s like the QL and Spectrum still work if you plug them in. Not sure why the difference.
Leaking capacitors are a big problem on machines for the the 1995-2010 period, after that it's mostly down the the tiny components used on computers today. The circuit board flexes as it heats up and cools down, which puts strain on the tiny solder joints and eventually they crack. Also, modern stuff tends to use ceramic capacitors which can also crack under thermal stress, and when they do they often fail in a dead short and kill the entire system.
Modern computers don't seem to last more than 10 to 12 years. But ones from the 80s like the QL and Spectrum still work if you plug them in. Not sure why the difference.
Reduced lead in the board tracing? I would also suggest that the components have transistors that are measured in hundreds of thousands, but in modern computers that's tens of billions..
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
Caps are not usually an issue on early/mid 80s computers. A cheap composite-to-HDMI converter will let you connect it to a modern TV, although the output will probably look a bit pants because Apple IIs were designed for monochrome NTSC monitors and you get colour fringing and rainbow effects on anything else.
The going rate on ebay for a working Apple II is £300-400, if you feel like selling it.
"if you feel like selling it."
I saved a thousand pounds to buy it. At the time I had a part time job in McDonalds - starting wage was 89p an hour. Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights I worked. 5 hours a night. Hard to get rid of such a hard worked for thing.
I produced a cash-flow forecast for my business using Visicalc on an Apple II. At last I'd succeeded in writing a plausible work of fiction, though I didn't realise it at the time.
Again just more nonsense. The benefit is not means tested, so those who want a nicer car can put money towards a nicer car. Hairshirt headline grabbing which will do nothing for the benefits bill.
compared to the PIP amount given up it is massively subsidised.
Plus no 20% VAT. It is hugely subsidised compared to privately purchased vehicles.
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
Do you mean abolish PIP or abolish Motability?
Abolish PIP. Everyone needs transport, just pay for it out of your wages, same as everyone else.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
PIP isn't just about getting around Barty. You've kneejerking a bit too hard.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
That was supposed to be case but everybody and their dog can get it now, you just say you have abad back, ADHD, autistic whatever and it is handed out , more than 700 joining everday or week seemingly. Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
My sister has to use a wheelchair. She does not qualify for PiP.
It is a mental system , yet I know people who have a "bad back", but able to walk about etc ( have some pain but not affected in the main) and they get it no problem
One of the men arrested in Huntingdon has been released with no charge
Lone wolf attack?
So the reports of passengers saying "he's got a knife" were correct. It did always sound like one attacker. Feel sorry for the other guy arrested.
Very possibly he's quite a hero.
Is there an irony, considering the context of the situation, that he might have been arrested because he was racially profiled ?
"He's a wrong 'un, Sir..."
If he is a hero, it will be a narrative pushed, rather desperately by the powers that be.
If someone pulls a knife on you, you should kill them. Or at the very least, render them incapable of using it.
The process state doesn't like self-defence.
In general states prefer to have a monopoly on violence. This has a very long history back to the early days of kingship, where the earliest law codes were an attempt to impose a King's Pace, rather than see people take things into their own hands.
So it's not surprising that the state should take a dim view of self defence and treat it with suspicion.
Comments
This tax was introduced by Spreadsheet Phil Hammond in April 2017, at £300 per annum extra VED on vehicles with a purchase price of £40k+ for each of the first 5 years. *
It's called the "Expensive Car Supplement".
When I chose my current vehicle in 2018, one of the reasons for writing off the Merc Estate as an option was that it was (just) over £40k, as well as too being small inside to take a standard size house door flat, and sliding off a nearly flat snowy road on the test drive.
From memory it was boosted to £425 more recently. Did RR rename it?
Unless I REALLY missed something.
* Mine was £36k with a lot of options, and they gave me 25% off to match CarWow (which was part of the reason for the lots of options).
Monmouthshire was part of England until 1974. Culturally it has always been divided.
https://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/what-is-the-expensive-car-road-tax-supplement-luxury-car-tax-explained/n27431
In general (RAC Cost of Motoring Index) motoring costs have been flat in real terms for well over a decade, so I think it's time for some Pigou Taxes, used to redirect some investment to alternatives to help people who cannot drive.
The Greens in Scotland had the right idea with 5% of the Transport Budget to Active Travel.
What does seem unjust is the fact that said top up is VAT free, including the increased cost of insurance, maintenance, tires etc that goes along with buying a more expensive vehicle. I don’t really see why any of Motability payments should be VAT free to be honest - why are we putting our collective thumbs on the scales in favour of spending your PIP payments on a private motor vehicle instead of using public transport? If you have to have an adapted vehicle, then I can see the argument there, perhaps. But if you’re getting a perfectly ordinary car on Motability that any of us could lease why is that VAT free?
Motability should attract the same VAT payments that ordinary car buyers have to pay, unless the recipient of PIP needs an adapted vehicle & even then if the PIP receiver chooses to buy a larger / more expensive vehicle that difference should have VAT applied.
NB quick edit: public transport is 0-rated for VAT in the UK. Perhaps this was the original justification for making Motability cars 0-rated to match the rating on public transport?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F39M2mqm7og
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5f7oT0cNvA&t=135s
There was no referendum or debate on the subject because it was totally unneccesary - just a legal tidying up.
Incidentally the English National Party ran candidates in the 2011(?) Assembly election on a campaign to return Monmouthshire to England and it achieved around 0.25%.
(I pay £210 a year for my old banger. No complaints.)
I have some sympathy with the "Zero VAT should be restricted to adapted vehicles only" point, as that fits with Zero VAT on medical devices (if I buy a blood glucose meter or a home A1C test there is a "VAT exempt" tick-box).
But does that then put a question mark over other zero rated categories? Was it hot sausage rolls that caused the Osborne fuss? Why should those be zero rated when disabled people who have £1000 per month of extra household expenses (typical figure for a household with one disabled person) be forced to pay VAT on a car they have to buy because they can't walk anywhere?
Any top-ups over & above the PIP-payment level should attract the same taxes that everyone else pays though.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/macron-has-declared-war-on-free-speech/
It is interesting because it makes it obvious that this is an EU-wide agenda (I don't think the individual countries have just all had the same brainwave) and one that our bureaucrats (including the elected ones) want us involved in, hence Starmer's current efforts.
Alaska prosecutors charge Knights of Ni with significant Medicaid fraud
https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-prosecutors-charge-knights-of-ni-with-significant-medicaid-fraud/
Year one - not driven for 20 years, and it's shiny, and it's new. About 1k
Years 2-3 - much the same
Years 4-5 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure
Years 6-7 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure
Years 7-8 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure
Years 8-9 - some insane cash grab caused me to reinsure
https://www.motability.co.uk/get-support/faqs/how-long-is-my-lease
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm
But then that asks the questions whether the whole shenanigans would save any money AT ALL once all the extra admin costs and extra service costs (more people claiming transport costs to hospital if they have no car, less healthy disabled people because they get out less, poorer health in disabled people because they would be relatively even poorer than they are already etc).
The ASI generated a big scary clickbait number but did a very simplistic analysis, as is their habit.
I am concerned that RR will do her quaking-in-her-boots-at-populist-shouting thing and make some stupid decisions.
My wife's car is pushing 17 now. I did weld up a small hole in the front subframe and change a couple of brake pipes two years ago, and it's had a crank position sensor and a new alternator belt this year, and it's getting due a couple of wishbone ball joints, but it's hardly a wreck. If we keep it (it's getting a bit small for a family of four), I think I can probably eek it out to at least it's 20th birthday.
My previous car was 16 years old when it was written off, still drove like new. The current one is 11, I'm expecting it to do the best part of another ten years.
Other stuff lasts too - gas combi boiler in my house is 17 years old now - I put an expansion vessel in it a couple of years ago, otherwise it's been completely trouble free.
Wikipedia draws a careful balance and is worth a look. The bit I like is:
The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica unambiguously described the county as part of England, but notes that "whenever an act [...] is intended to apply to [Wales] alone, then Wales is always coupled with Monmouthshire". However, most Acts of Parliament listed Monmouthshire as part of England; for example, the Local Government Act 1933 listed both the administrative county of Monmouth and county borough of Newport as part of England.
But other bits are available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthshire_(historic)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0t8UYZ9rrQ
I drive in it to the west coast of Ireland and back a few times a year.
I don't intend to replace it.
EDIT NB I use the ferry to cross the Irish Sea.
And that will definitely fix fare dodging.
I have an Apple II computer in the loft. It certainly worked last time I switched it on (35 years ago maybe). I rather expect it to still work, but I'm aware that the capacitors (perhaps other things) might decide otherwise.
And anyway I've no idea how I'd connect it to a monitor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cy85leer5xet#Scorecard
Abolish PIP and tax everyone the same. Problem solved.
Want a car? Get a job and pay for it out of your wages.
I'd have a scheme to pay for eg wheelchairs if required, but transport? Just pay for it as everyone else has to.
I'd like to live in a country where someone with a devastating health condition, often something they were born with, can have a decent standard of living. PIP helps people who can't dress or clean themselves, can't use the toilet. If they can't leave the house without help. Of all the things my taxes get spent on, PIP must be the among those I am most happy about.
Perhaps the criteria are too loose? Perhaps it should be means-tested for those on high incomes/wealth? But overall, a good thing for a rich country to deliver.
The going rate on ebay for a working Apple II is £300-400, if you feel like selling it.
Just scrap it and scrap taxes on transport so that people can afford transport without a subsidy.
Soon you will be odd man/woman out if you are not getting it.
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/victims/gis/maps/gismaps-22.html
There are recordings of my grandmother telling a long story 65 years ago in a broad Oldham accent; my brother counting to ten aged 3 (he's 67 now); my 14 year old girlfriend singing a song.
I was puzzled how to transfer to a new device and then realised all I needed was my Smartphone on record.
I have them to hand. My brother is quite intrigued. And my grandchildren.
I saved a thousand pounds to buy it. At the time I had a part time job in McDonalds - starting wage was 89p an hour. Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights I worked. 5 hours a night. Hard to get rid of such a hard worked for thing.
When they first appeared the site was attacked quite hard - especially by Republicans. They claimed it was anti-peace process!
It’s stood the test of time really well - a few, very minor errata over the years. It’s data is definitely of high academic quality - been cited in many, many academic papers on the conflict.
does one eighty-five, but now
I just walk to work.
It was replaced by Fiat.
The process state doesn't like self-defence.
So it's not surprising that the state should take a dim view of self defence and treat it with suspicion.
Having said that, the number of people actually killed in self defence in the US is probably miniscule