On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
About the same as we would, with indifference?
Not persuaded people are quite as indifferent as you assume. It probably explains why Ed Milliband got married a couple of years before the 2015 election. I really believe there are many voters who would be unhappy at the idea of having a PM 'shacking up' at No 10.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
I don't think there would be a Corbynista Socialist Republic in London. But then I know London pretty well. If London kept all the wealth it created it would be able to buy in whatever it needed. That's essentially what happens now, but London does it with only a portion of what it earns.
You were also a Labour party member who thought he knew the party well.
And you continually predicted disaster for Corbyn Labour at the general election.
As to London, it has a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the UK - it creates a lot of wealth through financial services but requires the stability the rest of the UK brings it.
But if London wants to go off in 'world city' flights of fancy it needs to deal with the consequences and some of these - homeless immigrants for example - are neither good for London itself or for the UK as a whole. Merely moving this problem onto other parts of the country benefits nobody in the long run.
And with that I now have some lunch to sort so I'll wish you a good day.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
About the same as we would, with indifference?
Not persuaded people are quite as indifferent as you assume. It probably explains why Ed Milliband got married a couple of years before the 2015 election. I really believe there are many voters who would be unhappy at the idea of having a PM 'shacking up' at No 10.
Are you really a 70 year old religious nutjob, or is it just a pisstake?
Justin124 is a right old charmer....if he isn't wishing politicians horrible deaths, he is making moral judgments about them based on 19th Century social norms...
Mr. 124, I'm not sure many people care. However, being married annoys no-one, so even if half a percent of the electorate dislikes 'living in sin' that's still a small net negative.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's revile them.
London's brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
With the money that London generates, rather than lavish it on hostile lotus-eaters.
Yep - it does seem pretty simple. Just let London keep the money it generates. That way London gets to solve its problems without having to bother the rest of the country. Of course, the rest of the country would then no longer benefit from London being a world city, but apparently that does not matter.
Mr. 124, I'm not sure many people care. However, being married annoys no-one, so even if half a percent of the electorate dislikes 'living in sin' that's still a small net negative.
I've known people who find being married extremely annoying.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?
Not so long ago such a view would have been seen as 'mainstream'.
By not long ago, you mean like 50+ years ago...a time when being gay, even if you saved the country from the German's, could get you chemically castrated.
The Liberals will be the only party offering a second referendum on Brexit in 2022. Corbyn made it clear this morning that he wont be offering one. "That ship has sailed" he said.
And thats why there wont be one. In 2022 Brexit will have happened. The issue before the voters in 2022 is which way will centrist voters reluctantly swing? To a right wing Tory Party which they dont want. Or to a marxist Labour party that they dont want.
Mr. 124, I'm not sure many people care. However, being married annoys no-one, so even if half a percent of the electorate dislikes 'living in sin' that's still a small net negative.
I accept that most people no longer care. My point is that more people would be put off than many assume. I would say the same thing about adulterers.
Mr. F, nothing new in poor leadership choices. After Alexander died, the Macedonians had to pick a king between a man with learning difficulties* and a foetus.
*Philip Arrhidaeus[sp], who was Alexander's half-brother. He had developed normally as a child but when Alexander's vicious mother Olympias showed up he suddenly started suffering intellectual degradation. It's believed she poisoned him to destroy his mental capabilities so he couldn't be a rival to her son. Alexander treated him well, but after he died, Philip Arrhidaeus was wed to Adea. Olympias ended up having the pair of them forced into suicide. Lovely woman.
A load of problems go away if we tax property/land at a rate just high enough to push out hoarders/speculators.
The politically smart way for labour to this would be to offer an income tax cut across the board so its revenue neutral. You could even have the BoE set the rate.
It would be wildly popular in wage-earning middle britain.
Higher taxes on property willwnever be popular, however sensible or justified.
Depends how it is designed. A council tax revaluation could be redistributive and most people might end up paying less tax but with huge rises in central and inner London and certain other cry high value areas reflecting current values.
A land value tax might work in a similar way. You can raise more revenue while designing a system where a lot of people pay less in annual property tax.
But the little old lady with wealth but no income gets hit hard.
Oh the famous little old lady living in her £3m home she owns outright who has no money and is living on beans on toast.
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.
With both you and Alastair I agree.
But that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people *do* have a problem with Mrs Miggins who is living in the house she raised her three children in is being asked to move at the age of 75 lest her council tax equate to her entire income.
Those people include both those left and right of centre. (The fact you could inherit council houses is a good example of this thinking on the left.)
There are approx 200 000 housing units in England unoccupied for 6 months or longer. London has quite a lot of these
However, buy-to-leave, centred around London, accounts for a small percentage of vacant properties, according to the charity Empty Homes. More often it's because of ordinary financial concerns, it adds.
"One of the most common reasons that properties are empty is because the owner cannot raise the money to do the property up to let it out, or sell," says Helen Williams, chief executive of Empty Homes. "Perhaps they previously rented it out and it now needs more works done to it, or maybe they inherited it." If property is jointly inherited, it can take years for beneficiaries to decide what to do with it, she says.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?
Not so long ago such a view would have been seen as 'mainstream'.
By not long ago, you mean like 50+ years ago...a time when being gay, even if you saved the country from the German's, could get you chemically castrated.
Not as far back as that. Would Thatcher have become PM in 1979 - or Tory leader in 1975 - if she had had her children out of wedlock?
You can make the argument that many of those who didn't like Corbyn and were worried about him but were more worried about the Tories and May came out and reluctantly voted for Labour in seats where Labour and the Tories were competing.
Presumably though in seats where the Lib Dems and Labour were competing people were actively choosing Labour over the Lib Dems as opposed to Labour over the Conservatives. It would appear, at least in those seats that people did actually prefer the left wing option of Labour rather than being railroaded into it.
It does seem to be a popular train of thought that Labour voters were dragged in kicking and screaming, there are probably always voters not completely happy with the party they are voting for in every election but I would be surprised if Labour voters are more discontented with the party than previously, I would contend the reverse is true.
Somebody mentioned Jacinda Ardern earlier, surely she is pretty much Corbyn in the British context.
Labour (in NZ) went from being quite a drab affair with no real energy or enthusiasm to packing out events, young people grabbing selfies with the leader I even saw some articles from NZ that appeared to be from the left noting Corbyn's relative success in the UK and how they could bring that over to NZ in the time leading up to Ardern taking over.
Now this doesn't mean they necessarily share policy positions or are the same politically but the drive that seemed to help propel her to her own success was quite similar to what helped drive Corbyn.
Though Jacinda Ardern only became PM after doing a deal with NZ First and the Greens, the centre right Nationals actually came first on seats, could well be a scenario repeated for Corbyn
Tether is the one that supposed is pegged to USD right? And every one they issue they have the equivalent in a bank in USD. And somehow despite being hacked and losing $100 millions worth of tokens, the next day they "minted" an equivalent amount in replacement and we are supposed to believe they have managed to get hold of that amount in USD overnight.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
On topic, there's a constituency of people who are centrist, internationalist and globalist and aren't being served by any party at the moment, including the Lib Dems. It's about 25% of the electorate and would be a prize for a third party. They need to rebrand themselves, at the risk of losing their rural bastions, that don't contain many of those kind of people. It's a risk they need to take. Labour could take that group under a different leader than Corbyn. The Conservatives are out for the duration on internationalism, I think, but they do have most of the nationalist conservative vote, which is a bigger group.
Surely Labour should also stick with its much bigger block as well, which may well include internationalist but not centrist. There is a reason New Labour has been thoroughly rejected.
I would argue the Lib Dems represent most of those things, just those people are used to being represented by parties that can actually win the election rather than one with 12 seats in parliament which is why you hear a lot of complaints and a lot of talk of new parties that seem on the surface to want roughly what the Lib Dems want.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
With the money that London generates, rather than lavish it on hostile lotus-eaters.
There is little demand for London independence although support for more powers for the Assembly, don't forget either much of London's wealth is generated by commuters who live in the Home Counties
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
Her husband is good looking and surfs a lot, the baby will no doubt look lovely and in any case that is what they expect from liberal metropolitan elitist Aucklanders anyway. So I expect they are very happy for the couple.
In addition, Winston Peters will be acting PM during Mat Leave.
NZ is a pretty cool place on these issues, not as socially conservative as here in many ways.
Oh the famous little old lady living in her £3m home she owns outright who has no money and is living on beans on toast.
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.
I know of a case that precisely fits your description - a well-known person in her nineties living in a very expensive house but with a minimal income, who applied for emergency assistance for repairs to her boiler from her pension fund. I was a trustee at the time, and we did in fact agree, on the basis that it wasn't reasonable to force her to move out in her frail state of health. But I think that recovering the cost from her estate when she later passed on would have been eminently fair.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
But why do they need to be housed in central London if they don't work and don't have long term connections there? Why not house them in cheaper parts of the U.K?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Tether is the one that supposed is pegged to USD right? And every one they issue they have the equivalent in a bank in USD. And somehow despite being hacked and losing $100 millions worth of tokens, the next day they "minted" an equivalent amount in replacement and we are supposed to believe they have managed to get hold of that amount in USD overnight.
While Tether is extremely concerning to the crypto community and there are some ugly parallels with the way Gox collapsed a few years ago, Tether is centrally controlled therefore the millions "stolen" were able to be voided immediately by the issuer, rather like stopping a bad cheque.
Plenty of reasons to doubt the legitimacy of Tether and the ongoing lack of auditing is a big red flag but the "stolen" tether was simply voided. It's not a true crypto, it's a centrally issued token which (supposedly) entitles you to an equivalent dollar value.
For those interested in the London debate, today's Sunday Politics London was quite interesting. A discussion on prefab housing and Jo Coburn just asked a guest "should London's borders be expanded?"
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
The same question could be posed by Copenhagen workers who live in Malmo.
If London is to continue giving such lavish international aid, it should at least ensure the recipients agree to abide by its values.
Nick, I work in but cannot afford to live in London. Why should the homeless get prioritised?
Because they literally don't have a home?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
If you are homeowner, you are undoubtedly a net beneficiary.
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
.
London's wealth derives from financial services and which is dependent upon the stability London being part of the UK brings.
Something which would be going bye-bye under a London Corbynista Socialist Republic.
Its astonishing how determined Londoners are to sponge off the UK, even as they revile it.
Some Londoners that is - as I don't expect to see a London Independence Party make an appearance at this year's elections I assume its a minority view.
Still, if London wants to play at being a 'world city' then that's London's choice. But some of the consequences will be foreign property speculation and homeless immigrants. And those need to be dealt with by London.
Good morning all.
I find this anthropomorphism of London a bit odd. I used to work in London (well, Holborn) up until 2000, so presumably I was doing my bit to generate wealth for the filthy provincials. Now I live in the South West (with a lengthy sojourn in Monmouthshire), so am a filthy provincial myself. I don't feel any different, but presumably I've lost the magical pixie dust that permeated me when I was a Londoner.
Oh the famous little old lady living in her £3m home she owns outright who has no money and is living on beans on toast.
Of course if she needed social care we would be quite happy to slap a £6k a month bill on her for the cost!
Said little old lady is just used as an excuse by wealthy London based property owners - some of whom are MPs - to ensure wealth is not taken into account in tax policy.
She would of course pay nothing while alive - as with her social care you would place a charge on her property and it would be paid out of her estate after death. So her poor relatives might only inherit £2.8m instead of £3m for a house she probably bought for £10k in the 1960s - poor diddums
Or she could just downsize to a £2m house rent it Jeremy Corbyn for a homeless family and go on year long world cruise. Such tough choices.
I know of a case that precisely fits your description - a well-known person in her nineties living in a very expensive house but with a minimal income, who applied for emergency assistance for repairs to her boiler from her pension fund. I was a trustee at the time, and we did in fact agree, on the basis that it wasn't reasonable to force her to move out in her frail state of health. But I think that recovering the cost from her estate when she later passed on would have been eminently fair.
Is it not beyond the wit of man (or even HMT) to design a land/property tax that takes some account of income levels as well?
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
New Zealand has gay marriage and legal abortion, it is not that socially conservative. Those would be most concerned would not be voting Labour anyway
That is probably correct. On the other hand, several people have suggested that life in New Zealand is akin to living in GB back in the 1950s or 1960s!
For those interested in the London debate, today's Sunday Politics London was quite interesting. A discussion on prefab housing and Jo Coburn just asked a guest "should London's borders be expanded?"
It's interesting that businesses in Bromley and Barnet are having to pay extra business rates for Crossrail levied by the Mayor - even though they are miles from the line. But businesses and council taxpayers in Maidenhead - who represents that area? - Slough and Brentwood which are directly on the Crossrail route pay nothing.
Maybe that might be a route to addressing the problem - if the wider south east benefits from a major infrastructure project why should only London pay for it?
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
The same question could be posed by Copenhagen workers who live in Malmo.
If London is to continue giving such lavish international aid, it should at least ensure the recipients agree to abide by its values.
Are you saying people who work in but don't live in London are receiving aid?
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK needs London's immigrants - if the UK wants to benefit from the wealth that London creates. If it doesn't, then the solution is simple: let London keep what it earns. That would solve the housing crisis in the capital pretty quickly.
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
The same question could be posed by Copenhagen workers who live in Malmo.
If London is to continue giving such lavish international aid, it should at least ensure the recipients agree to abide by its values.
Are you saying people who work in but don't live in London are receiving aid?
He is just whining as ever, surprised he takes so much time off from counting his loot.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
You really are a horrible little bastard, aren't you?
Not so long ago such a view would have been seen as 'mainstream'.
By not long ago, you mean like 50+ years ago...a time when being gay, even if you saved the country from the German's, could get you chemically castrated.
PLUG:
My choir has recently released a CD of Codebreaker by James McCarthy which is about the life of Alan Turing. It includes a choral setting of Gordon Brown’s apology.
It was broadcast last night on Classic FM at around 8.45pm as Rob Cowan’s Sure Shot.
I find this idea of London independence, be it actual, budgetary, subsidisation or not - very strange.
London would not be the place it is without a country attached to it. The same banks that profit off international standing trade off domestic consumption, domestic banking, Britain plc, a nationwide pound, and a worldwide language.
An exercise in drawing a line round the M25 is a very arbitrary one.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
New Zealand has gay marriage and legal abortion, it is not that socially conservative. Those would be most concerned would not be voting Labour anyway
That is probably correct. On the other hand, several people have suggested that life in New Zealand is akin to living in GB back in the 1950s or 1960s!
No longer true, if it ever was. NZ has always been a progressive country. Votes for women in 1893 for example, and a welfare state before our own.
On topic, there's a constituency of people who are centrist, internationalist and globalist and aren't being served by any party at the moment, including the Lib Dems. It's about 25% of the electorate and would be a prize for a third party. They need to rebrand themselves, at the risk of losing their rural bastions, that don't contain many of those kind of people. It's a risk they need to take. Labour could take that group under a different leader than Corbyn. The Conservatives are out for the duration on internationalism, I think, but they do have most of the nationalist conservative vote, which is a bigger group.
Surely Labour should also stick with its much bigger block as well, which may well include internationalist but not centrist. There is a reason New Labour has been thoroughly rejected.
I would argue the Lib Dems represent most of those things, just those people are used to being represented by parties that can actually win the election rather than one with 12 seats in parliament which is why you hear a lot of complaints and a lot of talk of new parties that seem on the surface to want roughly what the Lib Dems want.
The "centrist" internationalists I am talking about see internationalism as more important than state ownership of capital. ie they might certainly be Social Democrats, but they won't be Socialists. There is a tension between Free-traders and social protection that the Lib Dems would have to manage, if they chose to go down the internationalist route. They could adopt the "Social Market Economy" model of the German CDU for instance. The question for Labour is whether they can get into government with just the Socialist vote or do they need the Social Democrats as well, especially if these have drifted to a reformed Lib Dems? Labour have higher expectations than the Lib Dems. They want potentially to be the party of government.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
While - presumably - sensible, practical, no nonsense types like you see them for the vile low-lives they are and ignore them.
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
New Zealand has gay marriage and legal abortion, it is not that socially conservative. Those would be most concerned would not be voting Labour anyway
That is probably correct. On the other hand, several people have suggested that life in New Zealand is akin to living in GB back in the 1950s or 1960s!
I would say that Australia and the USA are more socially conservative than we are, Canada is more socially liberal and New Zealand is about the same ie it got gay marriage the year before we did and on abortion allows it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, and/or fetal defects as we allow it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors
The Liberals will be the only party offering a second referendum on Brexit in 2022. Corbyn made it clear this morning that he wont be offering one. "That ship has sailed" he said.
And thats why there wont be one. In 2022 Brexit will have happened. The issue before the voters in 2022 is which way will centrist voters reluctantly swing? To a right wing Tory Party which they dont want. Or to a marxist Labour party that they dont want.
The tragedy of British politics today.
Internationalism is a state of mind. The pitch would be that the UK should aim to be outward looking, comfortable with a connected world and making the most of the opportunities that comes from being plugged into the international system. Brexit runs counter to that vision, and we would aim to mitigate its effect and ideally reconnect with Europe and the rules based system, but it's not the cause itself.
That might free up more housing for productive people to live near where they work, who pay taxes, add value, do useful jobs and serve the community. A wacky idea perhaps?!
And why should 'cheaper parts of the UK' have to house London's homeless immigrants ?
If London wants to be a 'world city' then it needs to accept what that entails.
'London's immigrants?'
The UK government let them into the country and created our immigration laws not London local authorities. And that means the UK should house them.
And looking at the numbers since 2010 if you voted Tory you voted for large scale immigration! So Tory voting shires should accept the consequences of what they voted for!
Local council London did their bit.
I believe that every Tory vote from 2010 onwards was for net immigration to be reduced to the tens of thousands.
And as we saw in 2016 its London which supports unlimited immigration from the EU.
If London wants these immigrants then it needs to deal with the resulting housing issues.
The UK
Then let London keep its immigrants and deal with the resulting housing issues.
Let London keep the money it earns and it would.
And how much would it earn without the rest of the UK ?
Do you think a Corbynista Socialist Republic is going to be the new Singapore ?
And we could also let London keep all the energy, water and food it produces.
London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland or Sweden. It would do fine. Sadiq Khan is much closer to the views of the average Londoner than Jeremy Corbyn. It is astonishing how determined provincials are to sponge off Londoners, even as they revile them.
Am I sponging off Londoners, by living in Luton? Or being sponged off, by working in Enfield?
The same question could be posed by Copenhagen workers who live in Malmo.
If London is to continue giving such lavish international aid, it should at least ensure the recipients agree to abide by its values.
I've been working for 29 years. I have little doubt that I've contributed more in tax than I've received in public spending during that time. But, it's never occurred to me that the lower orders should be expected to adhere to my "values" in return for my largesse. Your views are at least a century out of date.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
While - presumably - sensible, practical, no nonsense types like you see them for the vile low-lives they are and ignore them.
Not having that. Yes, my comment was a chippy, but I'm sorry, the original point by TheWhiteRabbit was spot on. The problems of high house prices and rough sleepers are totally unconnected.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
In my experience, rough sleepers are a concern of far more than right-on do-gooders worried about their wealth. They seem to attract a lot of concern from many kinds of people - wealthy, not-so-wealthy, young, old, working, non-working - though with some bias towards women. When my wife started to look out for one of the homeless young men that sleep rough in Leamington she found out that there is quite a network of citizens doing really good stuff in this area. With their help, this young man - who had been thrown out of the family home, fell through the welfare gap and got involved with drugs - managed to find a place in a hostel and start to sort himself out. When he was on the street, money was the last thing he needed as it would have gone on drugs: he needed food and drink, warm clothing and the knowledge that not everyone thought he was the complete scum of the earth.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
While - presumably - sensible, practical, no nonsense types like you see them for the vile low-lives they are and ignore them.
Not having that. Yes, my comment was a chippy, but I'm sorry, the original point by TheWhiteRabbit was spot on. The problems of high house prices and rough sleepers are totally unconnected.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
In my experience, rough sleepers are a concern of far more than right-on do-gooders worried about their wealth. They seem to attract a lot of concern from many kinds of people - wealthy, not-so-wealthy, young, old, working, non-working - though with some bias towards women. When my wife started to look out for one of the homeless young men that sleep rough in Leamington she found out that there is quite a network of citizens doing really good stuff in this area. With their help, this young man - who had been thrown out of the family home, fell through the welfare gap and got involved with drugs - managed to find a place in a hostel and start to sort himself out. When he was on the street, money was the last thing he needed as it would have gone on drugs: he needed food and drink, warm clothing and the knowledge that not everyone thought he was the complete scum of the earth.
That's interesting. I'm sure you're aware that there's been an indulgence of a view that we ought to give money to those begging in the street.
London is the merchant bank stuck on the retail bank. Its much sexier and more profitable but it also needs the weight and stability that the retail bank gives it when things get tricky and at least some of its success comes from the use of the retail bank's balance sheet. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement and I think its a bit silly to claim otherwise.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
In my experience, rough sleepers are a concern of far more than right-on do-gooders worried about their wealth. They seem to attract a lot of concern from many kinds of people - wealthy, not-so-wealthy, young, old, working, non-working - though with some bias towards women. When my wife started to look out for one of the homeless young men that sleep rough in Leamington she found out that there is quite a network of citizens doing really good stuff in this area. With their help, this young man - who had been thrown out of the family home, fell through the welfare gap and got involved with drugs - managed to find a place in a hostel and start to sort himself out. When he was on the street, money was the last thing he needed as it would have gone on drugs: he needed food and drink, warm clothing and the knowledge that not everyone thought he was the complete scum of the earth.
Yesa, just the kind of thing we pay a fortune to the government to run social services and prevent. It is government incompetence and misuse of funds that is the issue.
In my experience, rough sleepers are a concern of far more than right-on do-gooders worried about their wealth. They seem to attract a lot of concern from many kinds of people - wealthy, not-so-wealthy, young, old, working, non-working - though with some bias towards women. When my wife started to look out for one of the homeless young men that sleep rough in Leamington she found out that there is quite a network of citizens doing really good stuff in this area. With their help, this young man - who had been thrown out of the family home, fell through the welfare gap and got involved with drugs - managed to find a place in a hostel and start to sort himself out. When he was on the street, money was the last thing he needed as it would have gone on drugs: he needed food and drink, warm clothing and the knowledge that not everyone thought he was the complete scum of the earth.
In my constituency experience, the most common problem was people suddenly jolted into homelessness (or other problems) from a completely different environment - as others have said, typically ex-army, ex-prisoners or people whose homes have broken up. If you're used to homelessness you may up to a point know the ropes (where to hope to find shelter, where you might get a free meal), but people new to it are often utterly lost. In general the welfare stae only really works if you know the procedures. That's where voluntary help (and churches and councillors and even MPs) is life-changing. I think that it can include immediate cash help (especially if you otherwise wouldn't be giving it to charity, the usual excuse) but proactive assistance and advice matters just as much.
In my ideal world, the local council would employ people (yes paid from our taxes) to go round looking for people needing advice and assistance, so it wasn't only dependent on the varying availability of volunteers. But they do a great job.
Interesting update in the Sunday Times today about the primary school in London that has pulled back from not allowing religious headwear or fasting. The Chair of Governors, who resigned as his attempts to secularise the school were thwarted, says he would happily return if he thought he would get the backing of the DfE to make the rules stick.
Should the Secretary of State make an unequivocal statement that the Governors of a primary school can prohibit religious practice, and remove children of parents who harass the Governors or staff? Or is he compromised by his own adherence to faith based education?
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
How do you know that? Do you stop and ask them?
I don't but it has become more noticeable in York City Centre.I was eating some street food on a bench with my wife, when a late middle aged homeless man set next to us with his sleeping bag and spirits in juice bottle.This was under a covered area to get out of the rain.We got chatting , he said he was ex military.Did not find out , how he ended up in this predicament.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
How do you know that? Do you stop and ask them?
I don't but it has become more noticeable in York City Centre.I was eating some street food on a bench with my wife, when a late middle aged homeless man set next to us with his sleeping bag and spirits in juice bottle.This was under a covered area to get out of the rain.We got chatting , he said he was ex military.Did not find out , how he ended up in this predicament.
Funnily enough I was in York on Thursday night and I did notice a number of rough sleepers. And coincidentally there was a piece on Look North talking about rough sleepers - specifically women sleeping rough. I can't remember the last time I saw a female rough sleeper.
I'd very much support what Nick P proposes. Gail Porter was on This Week talking about how circumstances conspired to leave her without anywhere to go and I agree that being able to offer help early on would make a difference.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
How do you know that? Do you stop and ask them?
They tend to wind up in Casualty a lot. Victims of assault, intoxications, infections, that sort of thing. My church also does some work in the field.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
I wonder if there might be mileage in having two options on Stamp Duty - you can either pay x% at the time the property is purchsed - or x% + y% per annum when the property is sold, either through a normal sale, or at death out of your estate. Certainly provides an incentive for people who are doing up a property to pay SD out of the uplift in value. Lenders might insist that it is paid upfront to keep their security on a mortgage that is a large % of the value (but even that is less of an issue now large deposits are being required).
A similar approach to wealth taxes could mean the asset rich/cash poor old dear who paid £15K for her house in 1967 needn't lose sleep.
Mr. 86, I saw that. Was somewhat bemused by the female focus as 90% or so of rough sleepers are men.
I'd say it must be closer to 99% in London. But I guess the Gail Porter example shows that it can happen to more people than we might imagine.
According to this survey this week one in three UK workers have less than £500 in savings and 41 per cent less than £1000. Not much chance of buying a flat on those savings levels if you don't already own - or even paying six weeks deposit up front when you move flat.
And if they lost their job they would barely be able to pay their rent and living expenses for a month from their meagre savings.
Given the rise in private renting - particularly amongst the under 40s - it's surprising it's not a far bigger problem frankly. So many Brits are literally living a month to month pay check to pay check existence.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
How do you know that? Do you stop and ask them?
They tend to wind up in Casualty a lot. Victims of assault, intoxications, infections, that sort of thing. My church also does some work in the field.
A colleague of mine used to collect the in-flight washbags we frequent flyers would accumulate, and his church then distributed them to the homeless.
The "centrist" internationalists I am talking about see internationalism as more important than state ownership of capital. ie they might certainly be Social Democrats, but they won't be Socialists. There is a tension between Free-traders and social protection that the Lib Dems would have to manage, if they chose to go down the internationalist route. They could adopt the "Social Market Economy" model of the German CDU for instance. The question for Labour is whether they can get into government with just the Socialist vote or do they need the Social Democrats as well, especially if these have drifted to a reformed Lib Dems? Labour have higher expectations than the Lib Dems. They want potentially to be the party of government.
Having quickly looked up internationalism the main values I seem to get from it ares ones I could see a quite left wing Labour and a centrist Lib Dem both claiming, the main point you could argue in favour of the Lib Dems being more so is their stronger position on staying in the EU. Wouldn't they, if they were prepared risk strengthening the conservatives hands because of a dislike of Corbyn's left wing policy's see state ownership of capital (or the lack of it) as more important than internationalism?
Although I guess you could argue their view of internationalism involves a right wing economic component.
But I think this is where I disagree with the argument for there being a percentage as large as 25% (in my uninformed opinion) those with an economic right wing ideology (on the lighter end) are generally well served by the Conservatives, even with a decent number of remainers voting for them. You could argue there is a range of certain views from Osbourne on the right to say Cooper on the left that aren't represented (if we ignore the Lib Dems) economically with a pro EU message added but I think that is a pretty small percentage of the population.
I've seen various well informed people argue what the difference between socialist and social democrat is with people claiming and counter claiming this is what they can or can't believe with this or that label attached to them. I don't think all that many voters could accurately tell people the difference between them (if one could be agreed) so the label itself won't matter but policy. I don't think Labour is going to go crazy and nationalise everything, the things Labour seem to want to nationalise have support above and beyond what Labour has.
With nationalisation I presume being the most marked difference between social democrats and socialists then surely Corbyn, at least in this element is on the winning side here.
Of course Labour would do better adding these votes to their own but any significant change in policy would likely come at the cost of much bigger parts of the vote Labour already have so a net negative. Apologies for going on a bit.
@brendan16 - I did see those statistics. What I'd be more interested to know is, how has the situation changed over the years? What was it like 20 years ago?
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
New Zealand has gay marriage and legal abortion, it is not that socially conservative. Those would be most concerned would not be voting Labour anyway
That is probably correct. On the other hand, several people have suggested that life in New Zealand is akin to living in GB back in the 1950s or 1960s!
I would say that Australia and the USA are more socially conservative than we are, Canada is more socially liberal and New Zealand is about the same ie it got gay marriage the year before we did and on abortion allows it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, and/or fetal defects as we allow it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors
Melbourne is more socially liberal than rural Queensland, Toronto is more socially liberal than Alberta, Auckland is more socially liberal than Invercargill, London is more socially liberal than Lincolnshire and San Francisco more socially liberal than Alabama.
It's an urban vs rural and small town divide not a country divide.
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
Yes, but rough sleepers are visible and make right-on do-gooders feel guilty about their wealth.
They certainly make us worry about the state of the country. Rough sleepers are a concern everywhere, and few that I see in Leicester are immigrants. Many are ex-prisoners or ex-military.
How do you know that? Do you stop and ask them?
They tend to wind up in Casualty a lot. Victims of assault, intoxications, infections, that sort of thing. My church also does some work in the field.
A colleague of mine used to collect the in-flight washbags we frequent flyers would accumulate, and his church then distributed them to the homeless.
That's a great idea, I'd take a guess that a huge amount of the contents of the washbags usually ends up in the bin.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
This is one of those issues that a lot of people can agree on in theory, that taxes from property should replace taxes on income.
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
This is one of those issues that a lot of people can agree on in theory, that taxes from property should replace taxes on income.
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
The two can be connected, however, if the Social Care required by the elderly is charged to their residence to be recovered on death in the same was as the proposed dementia tax at the election. This seemed to me a sensible way forward although I accept that treating dementia differently from the other needs of old age was problematic. Who knows, if Meals on Wheels were to be charged to the property the relatives of the older person might even come by a bit more often and help with the cooking!
The Scottish Defence League, out of deep concern & compassion no doubt, are holding protests outside Bute House and in Sturgeon's constituency to highlight the the death of the homeless squaddy mentioned in the article. That Govanhill has one of the highest immigrant populations in Scotland is, I'm sure, a handy bonus.
All of the funding for TfL from the 'government' now for capital and revenue spending each year comes from business rates - London is actually subsidising itself therefore as even after the money TfL and the Mayor and the boroughs get for revenue and capital spending it still pays £3bn of its locally generated business rates income over to fund local services elsewhere in England.
The government has no money - it raises money from taxpayers and businesses!
And in terms of what pays for local services - business rates - London pays huge sums. The City of Westminster for example alone collects more in business rates now than the eight largest city councils in England outside London (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Liverpool and Newcastle city councils) combined! Amazing but true!
The U.K. Government is simply subsidising London transport with revenues collected from London businesses - which isn't really a London subsidy is it?
It does show how crazily imbalanced the UK has become - that same London borough also generates £100m more in residential and commercial property stamp duty a year than the whole of Scotland, Wales and NI combined.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
This is one of those issues that a lot of people can agree on in theory, that taxes from property should replace taxes on income.
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
Is not one of the problems with taxes on property (and bear in mind I am not opposed to them as long as there is a corresponding reduction in taxes on income) the fact that they are much more prone to large swings in value and so make them a risky basis for steady Government revenue?
It is all very well looking at the past 25 years and thinking they are a reliable source of income but what would have been the effect on Government finances in the short term if we had had property taxes in the late 80s when the last housing crash happened and large numbers of people were in negative equity?
Given we are agreed I think that we want house prices to drop relative to income to make it possible for younger people to get on the housing ladder, surely that implies a drop in Government revenue.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
This is one of those issues that a lot of people can agree on in theory, that taxes from property should replace taxes on income.
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
The two can be connected, however, if the Social Care required by the elderly is charged to their residence to be recovered on death in the same was as the proposed dementia tax at the election. This seemed to me a sensible way forward although I accept that treating dementia differently from the other needs of old age was problematic. Who knows, if Meals on Wheels were to be charged to the property the relatives of the older person might even come by a bit more often and help with the cooking!
Yes they're two things that could be looked at at the same time, but obviously needs to be on a cross-party basis to avoid the sort of political point-scoring we saw at the election when the Conservatives had the guts to propose something.
Maybe for property taxes something based on the last transacted value might work as an implementation period, to avoid taxing Granny out of the home she paid tuppence for decades ago. If nothing else a property tax will see all the Chinese and Qataris in London paying a lot more in taxes than they do now, and it's almost impossible to avoid.
Presumably Leave in the Lonexit campaign will paint the bendy buses with "Let's take the £350m a week we send to the provinces and spend it on Guy's and GOS", and show posters of hordes of poor white proles marching towards the M25, under flags of St George.
The two can be connected, however, if the Social Care required by the elderly is charged to their residence to be recovered on death in the same was as the proposed dementia tax at the election. This seemed to me a sensible way forward although I accept that treating dementia differently from the other needs of old age was problematic. Who knows, if Meals on Wheels were to be charged to the property the relatives of the older person might even come by a bit more often and help with the cooking!
Yes they're two things that could be looked at at the same time, but obviously needs to be on a cross-party basis to avoid the sort of political point-scoring we saw at the election when the Conservatives had the guts to propose something.
Maybe for property taxes something based on the last transacted value might work as an implementation period, to avoid taxing Granny out of the home she paid tuppence for decades ago. If nothing else a property tax will see all the Chinese and Qataris in London paying a lot more in taxes than they do now, and it's almost impossible to avoid.
After the shambles of the dementia tax I don't see anyone being brave enough to pick this up for some considerable time to come but if Hunt is going to make anything of his new responsibilities in Social Care we are going to need a significant additional flow of income to properly fund it. I do not agree with @Richard_Tyndall on this. Between Health and Social Care there are an unacceptably high level of unmet need that cannot adequately be addressed with our current levels of taxation. The question is where does the additional money come from? Wealth, and in particular property wealth, seems to me to be an obvious source with some beneficial side effects such as reducing inequality.
The two can be connected, however, if the Social Care required by the elderly is charged to their residence to be recovered on death in the same was as the proposed dementia tax at the election. This seemed to me a sensible way forward although I accept that treating dementia differently from the other needs of old age was problematic. Who knows, if Meals on Wheels were to be charged to the property the relatives of the older person might even come by a bit more often and help with the cooking!
Yes they're two things that could be looked at at the same time, but obviously needs to be on a cross-party basis to avoid the sort of political point-scoring we saw at the election when the Conservatives had the guts to propose something.
Maybe for property taxes something based on the last transacted value might work as an implementation period, to avoid taxing Granny out of the home she paid tuppence for decades ago. If nothing else a property tax will see all the Chinese and Qataris in London paying a lot more in taxes than they do now, and it's almost impossible to avoid.
After the shambles of the dementia tax I don't see anyone being brave enough to pick this up for some considerable time to come but if Hunt is going to make anything of his new responsibilities in Social Care we are going to need a significant additional flow of income to properly fund it. I do not agree with @Richard_Tyndall on this. Between Health and Social Care there are an unacceptably high level of unmet need that cannot adequately be addressed with our current levels of taxation. The question is where does the additional money come from? Wealth, and in particular property wealth, seems to me to be an obvious source with some beneficial side effects such as reducing inequality.
Unfortunately it will make bugger all difference if we do not undertake massive and systematic reform of both Health and Social Care. As with so much in our country they are unfit for purpose and we should be looking at other countries and how they deal with these issues for solutions.
One problem has been the fracturing of the family unit which has destroyed the centuries old concept of children's responsibility for their elders, squaring the circle of parents looking after their children. Don't worry I am not going to start banging on about traditional families. This is not about the structure of the family, it is about taking personal responsibility for your loved ones when they are in need. Too often now we expect the State to pick up these responsibilities rather than shouldering them ourselves.
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Straight abolition and levy the same amount as an annual property tax. For the average household no difference in lifetime tax paid, but removes the disincentive to mobility, and encourages release of unused housing capacity.
This is one of those issues that a lot of people can agree on in theory, that taxes from property should replace taxes on income.
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
Is not one of the problems with taxes on property (and bear in mind I am not opposed to them as long as there is a corresponding reduction in taxes on income) the fact that they are much more prone to large swings in value and so make them a risky basis for steady Government revenue?
It is all very well looking at the past 25 years and thinking they are a reliable source of income but what would have been the effect on Government finances in the short term if we had had property taxes in the late 80s when the last housing crash happened and large numbers of people were in negative equity?
Given we are agreed I think that we want house prices to drop relative to income to make it possible for younger people to get on the housing ladder, surely that implies a drop in Government revenue.
The current house price boom is a result of combination of excess demand (smaller households, immigration, insufficient building etc) and very cheap finance with interest rates on the floor. As interest rates slowly rise again, we should see a slow reduction in property prices and there's evidence that this is already starting to happen in London where recent stamp duty rises have added an extra barrier to transactions. The rate of tax could be adjusted upwards slowly as prices fall in order to keep revenues the same, rather like fuel duty going up as cars become more efficient over time.
To turn your question on its head, we saw clearly what happened in 2008 when the government was dependent to a large extent on incomes from high earners and corporations, would a more property-focussed tax base have also seen revenues fall off a cliff as they did a decade ago?
Regardless of her marital status I would cheerfully vote for Jacinta Ardern. A PM who spends her time getting stuffed rather than stuffing her country would be a truly refreshing change.
(It should of course be noted that according to strict canon law Thatcher's two were illegitimate as well, a la Elizabeth I, because her husband was a divorcee. More proof, if proof be needed that Mark Thatcher is a bastard.)
Agree tax has to move a bit more towards wealth rather than income. Actually the worst of all at the moment is property stamp duty - currently at levels which make moving house a last resort for anyone in London area. Lowering the tax might bring in more money as well as helping fix the broken housing market.
Hammond has already taken almost all first time buyers out of stamp duty, on wealth taxes there is probably more support for something like Ed Miliband's mansion tax than May's dementia tax
On topic, the next election. Two words, Jacinta Arden.
NZ Labour had given up hope & looked on course for a bruising defeat.
When people make confident predictions for 2022 on pb, just smile & think of Jacinta.
The right leader could easily reinvigorate the Tories or LibDems or Labour. All 3 parties have flawed leaders at the moment.
Curiously (as with NZ Labour), it may be the party that becomes most desperate that ultimately wins.
It is desperation that will produce a Jacinta.
I wonder how socially conservative New Zealand has reacted to the news that its new PM now has a little bastard on the way?!
New Zealand has gay marriage and legal abortion, it is not that socially conservative. Those would be most concerned would not be voting Labour anyway
That is probably correct. On the other hand, several people have suggested that life in New Zealand is akin to living in GB back in the 1950s or 1960s!
I would say that Australia and the USA are more socially conservative than we are, Canada is more socially liberal and New Zealand is about the same ie it got gay marriage the year before we did and on abortion allows it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, and/or fetal defects as we allow it in cases of cases of maternal life, mental health, health, rape, fetal defects, and/or socioeconomic factors
Melbourne is more socially liberal than rural Queensland, Toronto is more socially liberal than Alberta, Auckland is more socially liberal than Invercargill, London is more socially liberal than Lincolnshire and San Francisco more socially liberal than Alabama.
It's an urban vs rural and small town divide not a country divide.
After the shambles of the dementia tax I don't see anyone being brave enough to pick this up for some considerable time to come but if Hunt is going to make anything of his new responsibilities in Social Care we are going to need a significant additional flow of income to properly fund it. I do not agree with @Richard_Tyndall on this. Between Health and Social Care there are an unacceptably high level of unmet need that cannot adequately be addressed with our current levels of taxation. The question is where does the additional money come from? Wealth, and in particular property wealth, seems to me to be an obvious source with some beneficial side effects such as reducing inequality.
I'm with you on that. While I agree with Richard that people SHOULD look after their loved ones, the reality is that some do and some don't, and some people don't have anyone around who loves them enough to make more than a token effort. Loving care should be on top of the minimum to ensure that people can get by. And yes, wealth rather than income is the obvious place to look.
I think you're a bit pessimistic about the possiblity of progress. Yes, the Tories were unfair with the "death tax" stuff, and we returned the favour with the "dementia tax" stuff, but actually everyone realises that something needs to be done, and it would really be ripe for an all-party commission, precisely because (a) we all know that no one party can touch it without retribution and (b) it's something that potentially affects virtually every family in Britain.
On topic and while I'll offer my usual thanks to Antifrank for a most interesting thread it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know already.
The LDs have never been a national party - indeed even at times of significant strength in 1992-94 and 2003-05 the prarty was only competitive in 100-120 seats at most.
No Party is truly national - all have their "dead" zones, the Conservatives don't compete in parts of London while Labour is becalmed in much of the Shires but the area of LD inactivity is and always has been extensive.
I look at Antifrank's list and try to compare with the 46 seats won in 1997 and of the top 20 on the list only Westmoreland & Lonsdale (2005), Leeds North West (2005) and East Dumbartonshire (2006) weren't LD gains or holds in 1997. Unfortunately, some of the original 46 have fallen away completely but to no great surprise, it's the strongest constituencies which have weathered the storm best and where the recovery of ground is the quickest and strongest.
Nobody's suggesting 100 seats for the LDs unless it's on an alternatehistory.com classic timeline (shameless plug) but the road to 12 to say 20 seats could be travelled and to 25 on a sunny day but beyond that it's going to need good fortune (by election) or a seismic schism in one of the two main parties for the LDs to be able to recover.
The Party currently has just shy of 1800 Councillors (compared with 6,500 for Labour and over 9,000 for the Conservatives if memory serves). As was the case in the past, so the future will be built on increasing those numbers in each round.
The Party I joined in 1980 died in the firestorm of the Coalition years and 2015 - there is a new party emerging which has energy in abundance. It has emerged in many areas of traditional strength and in one or two pockets where the Party was never strong. Conversely some areas of previous strength have withered to near extinction. That happens.
Mr. Alistair, strong argument for Schrodinger's workforce.
That does remind me a bit of some polling done around the referendum, that people who had been abroad less frequently were likelier to vote Leave (apologies if I remember falsely, but I think that was the gist of it).
Regardless of her marital status I would cheerfully vote for Jacinta Ardern. A PM who spends her time getting stuffed rather than stuffing her country would be a truly refreshing change.
(It should of course be noted that according to strict canon law Thatcher's two were illegitimate as well, a la Elizabeth I, because her husband was a divorcee. More proof, if proof be needed that Mark Thatcher is a bastard.)
To add to my earlier point, I doubt that Theresa May would have become Tory leader in July 2016 had she been the parent of illegitimate children.
I find this idea of London independence, be it actual, budgetary, subsidisation or not - very strange.
London would not be the place it is without a country attached to it. The same banks that profit off international standing trade off domestic consumption, domestic banking, Britain plc, a nationwide pound, and a worldwide language.
An exercise in drawing a line round the M25 is a very arbitrary one.
London is the merchant bank stuck on the retail bank. Its much sexier and more profitable but it also needs the weight and stability that the retail bank gives it when things get tricky and at least some of its success comes from the use of the retail bank's balance sheet. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement and I think its a bit silly to claim otherwise.
Indeed.
Its a connected relationship which some Londoners seem very insecure about.
Comments
And you continually predicted disaster for Corbyn Labour at the general election.
As to London, it has a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the UK - it creates a lot of wealth through financial services but requires the stability the rest of the UK brings it.
But if London wants to go off in 'world city' flights of fancy it needs to deal with the consequences and some of these - homeless immigrants for example - are neither good for London itself or for the UK as a whole. Merely moving this problem onto other parts of the country benefits nobody in the long run.
And with that I now have some lunch to sort so I'll wish you a good day.
Sir Edric once referred to his wife as the wicked witch of wedlock.
And thats why there wont be one. In 2022 Brexit will have happened. The issue before the voters in 2022 is which way will centrist voters reluctantly swing? To a right wing Tory Party which they dont want. Or to a marxist Labour party that they dont want.
The tragedy of British politics today.
I see Tether and Bitfinex continue to spiral the scam plughole
https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-fails-to-perform-promised-audits-instead-they-have-a-shareholder-tell-everyone-its-all-965ae7037b5d
*Philip Arrhidaeus[sp], who was Alexander's half-brother. He had developed normally as a child but when Alexander's vicious mother Olympias showed up he suddenly started suffering intellectual degradation. It's believed she poisoned him to destroy his mental capabilities so he couldn't be a rival to her son. Alexander treated him well, but after he died, Philip Arrhidaeus was wed to Adea. Olympias ended up having the pair of them forced into suicide. Lovely woman.
But that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people *do* have a problem with Mrs Miggins who is living in the house she raised her three children in is being asked to move at the age of 75 lest her council tax equate to her entire income.
Those people include both those left and right of centre. (The fact you could inherit council houses is a good example of this thinking on the left.)
"One of the most common reasons that properties are empty is because the owner cannot raise the money to do the property up to let it out, or sell," says Helen Williams, chief executive of Empty Homes. "Perhaps they previously rented it out and it now needs more works done to it, or maybe they inherited it." If property is jointly inherited, it can take years for beneficiaries to decide what to do with it, she says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34930602
I would argue the Lib Dems represent most of those things, just those people are used to being represented by parties that can actually win the election rather than one with 12 seats in parliament which is why you hear a lot of complaints and a lot of talk of new parties that seem on the surface to want roughly what the Lib Dems want.
NZ is a pretty cool place on these issues, not as socially conservative as here in many ways.
Plenty of reasons to doubt the legitimacy of Tether and the ongoing lack of auditing is a big red flag but the "stolen" tether was simply voided. It's not a true crypto, it's a centrally issued token which (supposedly) entitles you to an equivalent dollar value.
If London is to continue giving such lavish international aid, it should at least ensure the recipients agree to abide by its values.
I find this anthropomorphism of London a bit odd. I used to work in London (well, Holborn) up until 2000, so presumably I was doing my bit to generate wealth for the filthy provincials. Now I live in the South West (with a lengthy sojourn in Monmouthshire), so am a filthy provincial myself. I don't feel any different, but presumably I've lost the magical pixie dust that permeated me when I was a Londoner.
Maybe that might be a route to addressing the problem - if the wider south east benefits from a major infrastructure project why should only London pay for it?
Apparently Corbyn was talking about rough sleepers, not statutorily homelessness.
In which case it is a very strange policy. For the vast majority of rough sleepers the problem isn't solely financial. The rough sleeping is frequently a symptom of ostracisation, addiction, and mental health issues, commonly a vicious cycle of all three.
My choir has recently released a CD of Codebreaker by James McCarthy which is about the life of Alan Turing. It includes a choral setting of Gordon Brown’s apology.
It was broadcast last night on Classic FM at around 8.45pm as Rob Cowan’s Sure Shot.
You can buy it via http://hyperurl.co/CodeOde
/PLUG
London would not be the place it is without a country attached to it. The same banks that profit off international standing trade off domestic consumption, domestic banking, Britain plc, a nationwide pound, and a worldwide language.
An exercise in drawing a line round the M25 is a very arbitrary one.
In my ideal world, the local council would employ people (yes paid from our taxes) to go round looking for people needing advice and assistance, so it wasn't only dependent on the varying availability of volunteers. But they do a great job.
Should the Secretary of State make an unequivocal statement that the Governors of a primary school can prohibit religious practice, and remove children of parents who harass the Governors or staff? Or is he compromised by his own adherence to faith based education?
I'd very much support what Nick P proposes. Gail Porter was on This Week talking about how circumstances conspired to leave her without anywhere to go and I agree that being able to offer help early on would make a difference.
Dr. Foxy, sadly not surprising.
A similar approach to wealth taxes could mean the asset rich/cash poor old dear who paid £15K for her house in 1967 needn't lose sleep.
And if they lost their job they would barely be able to pay their rent and living expenses for a month from their meagre savings.
Given the rise in private renting - particularly amongst the under 40s - it's surprising it's not a far bigger problem frankly. So many Brits are literally living a month to month pay check to pay check existence.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/seventy-per-cent-of-british-workers-are-chronically-broke-research-reveals-a3749701.html
Although I guess you could argue their view of internationalism involves a right wing economic component.
But I think this is where I disagree with the argument for there being a percentage as large as 25% (in my uninformed opinion) those with an economic right wing ideology (on the lighter end) are generally well served by the Conservatives, even with a decent number of remainers voting for them. You could argue there is a range of certain views from Osbourne on the right to say Cooper on the left that aren't represented (if we ignore the Lib Dems) economically with a pro EU message added but I think that is a pretty small percentage of the population.
I've seen various well informed people argue what the difference between socialist and social democrat is with people claiming and counter claiming this is what they can or can't believe with this or that label attached to them. I don't think all that many voters could accurately tell people the difference between them (if one could be agreed) so the label itself won't matter but policy. I don't think Labour is going to go crazy and nationalise everything, the things Labour seem to want to nationalise have support above and beyond what Labour has.
With nationalisation I presume being the most marked difference between social democrats and socialists then surely Corbyn, at least in this element is on the winning side here.
Of course Labour would do better adding these votes to their own but any significant change in policy would likely come at the cost of much bigger parts of the vote Labour already have so a net negative. Apologies for going on a bit.
It's an urban vs rural and small town divide not a country divide.
"London pays almost a third of UK tax"[1]
"More than half UK investment in transport is in London"[2]
1: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report
2: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/20/more-than-half-uk-investment-in-transport-is-in-london-says-study
However, the devil is always in the detail and any actual proposal, even if revenue neutral overall, will have some people losing out massively and they'll be extremely vocal in their opposition. Add to that the howls of "Income tax cuts for millionaires" and it's politically more difficult than social care to sort out.
https://tinyurl.com/yaxvaqse
The Scottish Defence League, out of deep concern & compassion no doubt, are holding protests outside Bute House and in Sturgeon's constituency to highlight the the death of the homeless squaddy mentioned in the article. That Govanhill has one of the highest immigrant populations in Scotland is, I'm sure, a handy bonus.
The government has no money - it raises money from taxpayers and businesses!
And in terms of what pays for local services - business rates - London pays huge sums. The City of Westminster for example alone collects more in business rates now than the eight largest city councils in England outside London (Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Liverpool and Newcastle city councils) combined! Amazing but true!
The U.K. Government is simply subsidising London transport with revenues collected from London businesses - which isn't really a London subsidy is it?
It does show how crazily imbalanced the UK has become - that same London borough also generates £100m more in residential and commercial property stamp duty a year than the whole of Scotland, Wales and NI combined.
It is all very well looking at the past 25 years and thinking they are a reliable source of income but what would have been the effect on Government finances in the short term if we had had property taxes in the late 80s when the last housing crash happened and large numbers of people were in negative equity?
Given we are agreed I think that we want house prices to drop relative to income to make it possible for younger people to get on the housing ladder, surely that implies a drop in Government revenue.
Maybe for property taxes something based on the last transacted value might work as an implementation period, to avoid taxing Granny out of the home she paid tuppence for decades ago. If nothing else a property tax will see all the Chinese and Qataris in London paying a lot more in taxes than they do now, and it's almost impossible to avoid.
One problem has been the fracturing of the family unit which has destroyed the centuries old concept of children's responsibility for their elders, squaring the circle of parents looking after their children. Don't worry I am not going to start banging on about traditional families. This is not about the structure of the family, it is about taking personal responsibility for your loved ones when they are in need. Too often now we expect the State to pick up these responsibilities rather than shouldering them ourselves.
To turn your question on its head, we saw clearly what happened in 2008 when the government was dependent to a large extent on incomes from high earners and corporations, would a more property-focussed tax base have also seen revenues fall off a cliff as they did a decade ago?
(It should of course be noted that according to strict canon law Thatcher's two were illegitimate as well, a la Elizabeth I, because her husband was a divorcee. More proof, if proof be needed that Mark Thatcher is a bastard.)
I think you're a bit pessimistic about the possiblity of progress. Yes, the Tories were unfair with the "death tax" stuff, and we returned the favour with the "dementia tax" stuff, but actually everyone realises that something needs to be done, and it would really be ripe for an all-party commission, precisely because (a) we all know that no one party can touch it without retribution and (b) it's something that potentially affects virtually every family in Britain.
On topic and while I'll offer my usual thanks to Antifrank for a most interesting thread it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know already.
The LDs have never been a national party - indeed even at times of significant strength in 1992-94 and 2003-05 the prarty was only competitive in 100-120 seats at most.
No Party is truly national - all have their "dead" zones, the Conservatives don't compete in parts of London while Labour is becalmed in much of the Shires but the area of LD inactivity is and always has been extensive.
I look at Antifrank's list and try to compare with the 46 seats won in 1997 and of the top 20 on the list only Westmoreland & Lonsdale (2005), Leeds North West (2005) and East Dumbartonshire (2006) weren't LD gains or holds in 1997. Unfortunately, some of the original 46 have fallen away completely but to no great surprise, it's the strongest constituencies which have weathered the storm best and where the recovery of ground is the quickest and strongest.
Nobody's suggesting 100 seats for the LDs unless it's on an alternatehistory.com classic timeline (shameless plug) but the road to 12 to say 20 seats could be travelled and to 25 on a sunny day but beyond that it's going to need good fortune (by election) or a seismic schism in one of the two main parties for the LDs to be able to recover.
The Party currently has just shy of 1800 Councillors (compared with 6,500 for Labour and over 9,000 for the Conservatives if memory serves). As was the case in the past, so the future will be built on increasing those numbers in each round.
The Party I joined in 1980 died in the firestorm of the Coalition years and 2015 - there is a new party emerging which has energy in abundance. It has emerged in many areas of traditional strength and in one or two pockets where the Party was never strong. Conversely some areas of previous strength have withered to near extinction. That happens.
That does remind me a bit of some polling done around the referendum, that people who had been abroad less frequently were likelier to vote Leave (apologies if I remember falsely, but I think that was the gist of it).
Its a connected relationship which some Londoners seem very insecure about.