Mr Murray was a member of the British Communist party for 40 years before he quit to join Labour under Mr Corbyn's left-wing leadership.
He has defended the Russian tyrant Stalin, suggesting his regime was better than living in the West.
And he has written an article expressing 'solidarity' with North Korea - which is ruled under the tyrant Kim Jong Un.
He'll fit in well.
Can you imagine if Mrs May tried to employ somebody with a history of making dodgy comments, I think there might be a bit of an uproar....Oh wait, Toby Young....
I am unconvinced that an attempt to overturn a democratic decision by means of a voting system that was also rejected by the voters, following the political class deliberately negotiating a horrendous deal for us, would necessarily improve the domestic political atmosphere.
It wouldn't be as bad as the Commons just reversing Article 50. But, short of that, it might be the worst single outcome for entrenching opinions and turning a polarised political situation into perpetual trench warfare.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Unfortunately the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and his Chancellor are designed to tax people like me and my parents until the pips squeak.
I also own property which is generally unoccupied most nights, something else Corbyn and his team would like to seize.
Property is undertaxed compared to income and other investments. Jezza is right to be considering a land value tax.
My parents are retired, like most of the homeowners on our street.
My parents bought their house in 1981 for around 15k, our neighbours bought their houses for around the same prices.
The houses around here are worth around 500k to 1.2 million, so because of no fault of their own they are sitting on huge asset rises.
A land value tax will be linked to property prices, so tell me what they should do.
Exactly - your parents have benefited from an enormous increase of wealth through property which was largely driven by the efforts of others around them making where they live prosperous.
It seems perfectly reasonable that some proportion of that wealth should be reclaimed for the public who created it.
Speaking for myself - a transition phase seems perfectly reasonable. I also quite liked some version of the Miliband idea of allowing people to defer the tax until they sell their property, at least in the interim.
None of this is intended as an attack on your parents - who I'm sure are very wise and knowledgeable people to have raised someone with such excellent views on AV.
This paragraph quote Churchill sums up:
"I hope you will understand that, when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual land owner who, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land is morally worse than anyone else who gathers his profit where he finds it in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy if it were not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice."
But that wealth they've not touched or spent it.
It's not money in their bank account.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
Property is undertaxed compared to income and other investments. Jezza is right to be considering a land value tax.
My parents are retired, like most of the homeowners on our street. My parents bought their house in 1981 for around 15k, our neighbours bought their houses for around the same prices. The houses around here are worth around 500k to 1.2 million, so because of no fault of their own they are sitting on huge asset rises. A land value tax will be linked to property prices, so tell me what they should do.
Not really, Mr Eagles. The buildings on a site are one thing, the value of the land is another. If a landowner choses to develop his land or not, and to what extent, that is up to him. And the planning authorities too, of course. If they refuse to allow development, then obviously the land falls in value. The building, in this case, is irrelevant.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
I hear they produce particularly good referees though ;-)
Nigel Owens was a pizza he'd be a Hawaiian Pizza.
I personally think he is more like Radiohead...their fans are totally committed and won't hear a bad word against them...where as everybody else thinks they had a couple of good hits in the past, but are now overindulgent and out of tune when performing live.
I am unconvinced that an attempt to overturn a democratic decision by means of a voting system that was also rejected by the voters, following the political class deliberately negotiating a horrendous deal for us, would necessarily improve the domestic political atmosphere.
It wouldn't be as bad as the Commons just reversing Article 50. But, short of that, it might be the worst single outcome for entrenching opinions and turning a polarised political situation into perpetual trench warfare.
Our Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union disagrees.
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
Other views are available. Like selfish twats, for instance. They know better than the voters. Always a dodgy line to tread, unless you have already determined not to face them again.
I’m still unconvinced there is “clear blue water” between May and Corbyn. Who can actually define the difference between a customs union and a customs arrangement?
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
"The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence."
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
I am unconvinced that an attempt to overturn a democratic decision by means of a voting system that was also rejected by the voters, following the political class deliberately negotiating a horrendous deal for us, would necessarily improve the domestic political atmosphere.
It wouldn't be as bad as the Commons just reversing Article 50. But, short of that, it might be the worst single outcome for entrenching opinions and turning a polarised political situation into perpetual trench warfare.
Our Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union disagrees.
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
He didn't say we couldn't change our mind, as I read it, he suggested the method you were outlining was not a good way of doing it because it relied upon a deliberate undermining of the attempt to make a deal and usage of a voting system without its own democratic mandate.
Now, personally I don't think the AV point is that big a deal, but I do think for future political satisfaction a second round or simply a binary choice would be better.
Yes, Jezza has played a blinder. It's astonishing to see him swagger about, posturing now as business's friend. What can Theresa do? Her speech this week has to be her Falklands moment - a combination of steely resolve and towering intellectual heft. She should throw down the gauntlet to both Brussels and the Moggites, focus her glinting, narrowed eyes and proclaim 'It's my way or the highway.'
Business's friend - until he massively raises Corporation Tax. Then listen to the CBI bleat. "Nobody told us...."
I’m still unconvinced there is “clear blue water” between May and Corbyn. Who can actually define the difference between a customs union and a customs arrangement?
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
"The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence."
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
If Corbyn commits to staying in the single market and preserving free movement he kills his chance of a majority at the next general election e.g. 17 out of the top 20 Labour target seats held by the Tories voted Leave, as well as allowing the ECJ to block his nationalisation plans. Which is of course why he has made consistently clear he opposes staying in the single market
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
How does their proposed amendment assist us?
Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
Those people who voted against TMay in 2017, in an attempt to stop Brexit, have made it more likely we will have a harder Brexit.
Do not complain, you will still get your Brexit.
Maybe some people wanted a softer Brexit. Not everyone was a Brexit at any price true believer.
Types of Brexit were not on offer. It effectively said "Stay" or "Leave" on the ballot
That was precisely my point - people had different ideas of the types of Leave that might arise, so your stating 'you will still get your brexit' is demonstrably not the case for everyone. That was always one of the major risks of course, and some leavers were always going to be disappointed with the version of Leave we ended up with.
But it is in something some remainers have pointed out, that some people have changed their minds because of the way the brexit process has proceeded, and the type of brexit we will now be getting, therefore it simply makes no sense to act as though ending up with a harder brexit has no impact on it being the type of brexit any particular leaver wanted. Given some still hope for remain, it is in fact quite relevant if the harder brexit we are heading for is still 'your brexit' for all leave voters.
If we had a rerun I don't know which way I'd vote, frankly.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
It's difficult to leave is true.
Sadly, BoZo and chums conned 17m people into thinking it was easy, and now they have to deal with the consequences.
You do realise that when you suggest all 17m people were conned - ignoring that the remain side made it very clear to everyone that it would be hard, so people decided they didn't believe it or did but accepted that as the price, and so it is the people you really want to blame - rather than merely perhaps some, you make it harder to accept any actually decent points you might make?
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
I'd be up for that to replace council tax
That was the policy of the Liberal Party, was long ago as the 1960s. Good to see that Labour are finally starting to catch up - or at least to "think about it".
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
F1: only day one of the first test, but so far engine reliability seems pretty good. McLaren did have a problem with a wheel deciding to go on strike, but that sort of thing does happen now and then, and mending a part like that is much easier than getting an extra 100bhp out of an engine.
Setting aside views on what a Corbyn government would be like, how has May managed to find herself estranged from her base? The Tory party is (was) owned and operated by big business, albeit with a shift away from actual constructive business towards head fund shysters in recent years.
Her "We are leaving the Customs Union" position may temporarily protect her own head. But its a disaster for business, industry and the city - and she seems utterly oblivious to why. To see the likes of the CBI and IoD lining up with Labour against the Tories on a Business and Economics issue is mind blowing - they may hate Corbyn and everything else he stands for, but if he will stop the economy crashing off the cliff then they will stand with him.
A Tory leader who puts her own survival ahead of all that. And the cretins in the Tory party still think she is fit to lead?
Multinationals are not the base of the Conservative Party. The base is its 13 m voters, of whom the vast majority say they would still vote Conservative.
True but the 13 m , do not fund the party.That is why May will eventually listen to big business.Not those who vote.
Corporate funding is not that significant these days.
We should welcome the fact that the Conservative Party is not the creature of large corporations, not criticise them for it.
I do , however I am cynical that May will not succumb to their pressure.Are you confident ?
I’m still unconvinced there is “clear blue water” between May and Corbyn. Who can actually define the difference between a customs union and a customs arrangement?
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
"The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence."
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
If Corbyn commits to staying in the single market and preserving free movement he kills his chance of a majority at the next general election e.g. 17 out of the top 20 Labour target seats held by the Tories voted Leave, as well as allowing the ECJ to block his nationalisation plans. Which is of course why he has made consistently clear he opposes staying in the single market
I suspect a fig leaf on migration can be negotiated for a cost. There has to be SOMETHING politicians can point to as a win from Brexit. If the UK signs up to their agenda for everything else, the EU would probably cut some slack, as long as membership is always the better option.
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
How does their proposed amendment assist us?
Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.
I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
IMHO, it makes good sense to tax capital more heavily, in order to tax income more lightly. But, the losers will not agree with that.
Setting aside views on what a Corbyn government would be like, how has May managed to find herself estranged from her base? The Tory party is (was) owned and operated by big business, albeit with a shift away from actual constructive business towards head fund shysters in recent years.
Her "We are leaving the Customs Union" position may temporarily protect her own head. But its a disaster for business, industry and the city - and she seems utterly oblivious to why. To see the likes of the CBI and IoD lining up with Labour against the Tories on a Business and Economics issue is mind blowing - they may hate Corbyn and everything else he stands for, but if he will stop the economy crashing off the cliff then they will stand with him.
A Tory leader who puts her own survival ahead of all that. And the cretins in the Tory party still think she is fit to lead?
Multinationals are not the base of the Conservative Party. The base is its 13 m voters, of whom the vast majority say they would still vote Conservative.
True but the 13 m , do not fund the party.That is why May will eventually listen to big business.Not those who vote.
Corporate funding is not that significant these days.
We should welcome the fact that the Conservative Party is not the creature of large corporations, not criticise them for it.
I do , however I am cynical that May will not succumb to their pressure.Are you confident ?
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
As some of us pointed out at the time, there's only a bad deal available.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
Setting aside views on what a Corbyn government would be like, how has May managed to find herself estranged from her base? The Tory party is (was) owned and operated by big business, albeit with a shift away from actual constructive business towards head fund shysters in recent years.
Her "We are leaving the Customs Union" position may temporarily protect her own head. But its a disaster for business, industry and the city - and she seems utterly oblivious to why. To see the likes of the CBI and IoD lining up with Labour against the Tories on a Business and Economics issue is mind blowing - they may hate Corbyn and everything else he stands for, but if he will stop the economy crashing off the cliff then they will stand with him.
A Tory leader who puts her own survival ahead of all that. And the cretins in the Tory party still think she is fit to lead?
Multinationals are not the base of the Conservative Party. The base is its 13 m voters, of whom the vast majority say they would still vote Conservative.
It's worth remembering that when Corbyn took over the leadership and ran into troubles it took quite a while before Labour voters noticed and Labour's poll rating started to fall. Don't assume the Tory vote is solid just because the current poor performance hasn't registered yet.
I’m still unconvinced there is “clear blue water” between May and Corbyn. Who can actually define the difference between a customs union and a customs arrangement?
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
"The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence."
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
If Corbyn commits to staying in the single market and preserving free movement he kills his chance of a majority at the next general election e.g. 17 out of the top 20 Labour target seats held by the Tories voted Leave, as well as allowing the ECJ to block his nationalisation plans. Which is of course why he has made consistently clear he opposes staying in the single market
I suspect a fig leaf on migration can be negotiated for a cost. There has to be SOMETHING politicians can point to as a win from Brexit. If the UK signs up to their agenda for everything else, the EU would probably cut some slack, as long as membership is always the better option.
The easiest way to resolve it would be to impose the transition controls for 7 years on Eastern European migration we could have had in 2004 but Blair failed to take
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
It's difficult to leave is true.
Sadly, BoZo and chums conned 17m people into thinking it was easy, and now they have to deal with the consequences.
You do realise that when you suggest all 17m people were conned - ignoring that the remain side made it very clear to everyone that it would be hard, so people decided they didn't believe it or did but accepted that as the price, and so it is the people you really want to blame - rather than merely perhaps some, you make it harder to accept any actually decent points you might make?
Not clear they convinced anyone Brexit was easy, otherwise votes would haemorrhaging from the government.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
The UK in its current form has existed for less than a century.
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
As some of us pointed out at the time, there's only a bad deal available.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
There are bad deals and then there are bad deals. Or indeed, no deals. Unless you are saying it makes no difference, in which case, again, I don't know why people complain about how badly the government is doing since the outcome is singular and inevitable, if remain is not one of the options.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
What about a block of flats? Small amount of land, large number of people. Does their "Land tax" work out at £10 per year or something ludicrously small?
The problem with a land tax is that certain areas may see a rise in value over time, which means the land tax rises and people are "priced out". Particularly in London this could exacerbate issues with "social cleansing"
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Nah, the real country is the European Union, with some separatists agitating in the western bit.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
IMHO, it makes good sense to tax capital more heavily, in order to tax income more lightly. But, the losers will not agree with that.
Plus for the average voter their capital is rising faster than their income, especially if they are a home owner.
The biggest loser from such a policy would be say a widow living in a large old rectory in the Home Counties, the biggest winner an investment banker renting in Mayfair. Not a great sell
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
The UK in its current form has existed for less than a century.
England has been around a lot longer.
'Was' around a lot longer. It hasn't been an independent country for quite some time, of course. Germany and Italy haven't been around long in their present forms either, but we don't call them by their constituent parts.
(I know we are different, a country of countries and all that)
Those people who voted against TMay in 2017, in an attempt to stop Brexit, have made it more likely we will have a harder Brexit.
Do not complain, you will still get your Brexit.
Maybe some people wanted a softer Brexit. Not everyone was a Brexit at any price true believer.
Types of Brexit were not on offer. It effectively said "Stay" or "Leave" on the ballot
That was precisely my point - people had different ideas of the types of Leave that might arise, so your stating 'you will still get your brexit' is demonstrably not the case for everyone. That was always one of the major risks of course, and some leavers were always going to be disappointed with the version of Leave we ended up with.
But it is in something some remainers have pointed out, that some people have changed their minds because of the way the brexit process has proceeded, and the type of brexit we will now be getting, therefore it simply makes no sense to act as though ending up with a harder brexit has no impact on it being the type of brexit any particular leaver wanted. Given some still hope for remain, it is in fact quite relevant if the harder brexit we are heading for is still 'your brexit' for all leave voters.
If we had a rerun I don't know which way I'd vote, frankly.
I would vote "Remain" and I would be a lot less conflicted about it than last time.
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
As some of us pointed out at the time, there's only a bad deal available.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
Those of those who voted Leave consider that the current deal is a bad one.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
IMHO, it makes good sense to tax capital more heavily, in order to tax income more lightly. But, the losers will not agree with that.
Maybe. But it’s probably necessary, along with increases in retirement age, as we move from one economy into another. Some would add UBI to that.
Retirement age increases are not liked much either, but are grudgingly accepted. We need a similar long term approach, perhaps tapering into a comprehensive LVT regime by 2030.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
It's difficult to leave is true.
Sadly, BoZo and chums conned 17m people into thinking it was easy, and now they have to deal with the consequences.
You do realise that when you suggest all 17m people were conned - ignoring that the remain side made it very clear to everyone that it would be hard, so people decided they didn't believe it or did but accepted that as the price, and so it is the people you really want to blame - rather than merely perhaps some, you make it harder to accept any actually decent points you might make?
Not clear they convinced anyone Brexit was easy, otherwise votes would haemorrhaging from the government.
I assume some people thought it would be, because undoubtedly some people said it would be, but when the alternate side is put so emphatically, and so many people voted against it, the simplest explanation is not that 17m people were conned. That seems, to me, to be a way of trying to criticise the voters while appearing not to criticise the voters.
I think we're inexplicably heading for a referendum on the deal.
1) Leave with no deal onto WTO Terms
2) Accept the deal and Leave
3) Reject the deal and Remain
Conducted under the alternative vote system,
This might be the only way to heal the nation.
No way.
If there is a second referendum it will either be (a) deal or crash out - if held by May/Boris/JRM; or (b) deal or remain - if held by Labour and perhaps a couple of soft Tories.
It depends when such a referendum is held, too. The question and perhaps options will be different if a vote is held pre-Brexit versus post-Brexit and during early transition.
However, logically you’d hope for a two question referendum. Something like:
Should we accept the Deal? If not, should we Remain, or Leave?
It would be very democratic.
Nope because in effect you are simply asking the same question as last time. The first question on accepting the deal or not is meaningless. All people would concentrate on is Remain or Leave.
So I assume you are accepting we should ask the same question every three years with laws that say the Government must act upon the result each time until a new referendum is held.
A recipe for chaos of course but oh so democratic.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
The UK in its current form has existed for less than a century.
England has been around a lot longer.
The UK including Ireland has been around since the early 19th century (losing the Republic in the early twentieth century), the UK including Scotland since the early 18th century and England and Wales have been united since the early 16th century and Wales has been a principality of the English crown since the 13th century
Isn't the fact that it is so hard to disentangle ourselves is itself an indication that we need to be less attached to something that is not working for our interests?
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
^^^ good post.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
I'm guessing that your upholding of that principle may be..inconsistent.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Nah, the real country is the European Union, with some separatists agitating in the western bit.
Isn't the fact that it is so hard to disentangle ourselves is itself an indication that we need to be less attached to something that is not working for our interests?
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
^^^ good post.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
I'm guessing that your upholding of that principle may be..inconsistent.
Not at all. In Scotland it would be *very* difficult to leave, totally different argument
In all honesty, I hope next time we get a Sindy vote rUK tries love bombing Scotland the whole time, not just try scare stories, however true they might or might not be.
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
As some of us pointed out at the time, there's only a bad deal available.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
Those of those who voted Leave consider that the current deal is a bad one.
That's a perfectly acceptable view.
I was taking umbrage at Mr Dancer's comment that the political class are trying to get us a bad deal.
Leaving the EU will be a bad deal no matter how good a deal we get, we lose a lot of the benefits.
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England since 1535.
I know Wales isn't a real country but their rugby fans get very upset when you point that out.
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.
England isn't a real country either, the only real countries in the British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
Nah, the real country is the European Union, with some separatists agitating in the western bit.
Is that a false photo,just seen same photo with him carrying a union flag.
Its the Rochdale Herald. It is a satirical site similar to the Daily Mash and the Southend News Network. Very funny and great for catching people out with their own biases.
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
Bottom line is that the Tories are making Jeremy Corbyn - Jeremy Corbyn! - look pragmatic, moderate and business-friendly. How is that even possible?
It's interesting that he's not as fixed in his positions as everyone (allies and opponents alike) thought. He's evolved a good deal as leader from professional insurgent to potential PM, losing purity but gaining credibility.
His 'purity' (which was always mythical, of course) is supposed to be his greatest strength, is it not?
Ignoring the parenthetical bit, yes, but he's got plenty of scope to whittle that down in favour of showing ability to deal with hard compromises. Nobody who likes him is going to say "Corbyn, what a sellout" any time soon. It's like the Tories being more liberal on gay marriage - it doesn't make anyone really argue that they've turned into an LGBT front.
I shall stay here. I will not abandon my beloved England, despite Comrade Corbyn.
I thought you lived in Wales?
Unfortunately the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and his Chancellor are designed to tax people like me and my parents until the pips squeak.
I also own property which is generally unoccupied most nights, something else Corbyn and his team would like to seize.
Property is undertaxed compared to income and other investments. Jezza is right to be considering a land value tax.
My parents are retired, like most of the homeowners on our street.
My parents bought their house in 1981 for around 15k, our neighbours bought their houses for around the same prices.
The houses around here are worth around 500k to 1.2 million, so because of no fault of their own they are sitting on huge asset rises.
A land value tax will be linked to property prices, so tell me what they should do.
You'd make payment postponable till the death or earlier sale. So they sit tight, and in practice it's just another form of inheritance tax Tricky of course if it accrues on bubble prices but is payable after a crash, but who knows how far the microviolinmaker's art will have progressed by then?
Is that a false photo,just seen same photo with him carrying a union flag.
Its the Rochdale Herald. It is a satirical site similar to the Daily Mash and the Southend News Network. Very funny and great for catching people out with their own biases.
It's very good. It had me fooled, until I read well into the article.
Mr. Eagles, aye. And the Constitution and Lisbon Treaty are completely different. I am very persuaded these things are true.
When I made my bet that we'd have another vote, it was on the basis the EU and pro-EU politicians here would deliberately get us the worst deal they could, to force a choice between staying in after or leaving on bad terms.
Is that a false photo,just seen same photo with him carrying a union flag.
Its the Rochdale Herald. It is a satirical site similar to the Daily Mash and the Southend News Network. Very funny and great for catching people out with their own biases.
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
How does their proposed amendment assist us?
Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.
I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
Of course you will, even when you are being dishonest or foolish you cannot afford to concede any points - just like you couldn't with the idiocy you were pushing about PCSOs on the previous thread.
So.
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).
I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
I'd be up for that to replace council tax
Absolutely it should replace council tax over time - and i suspect that would be a good way of gaining some public acceptance for a new tax, if it was replacing an old one.
Isn't the fact that it is so hard to disentangle ourselves is itself an indication that we need to be less attached to something that is not working for our interests?
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
^^^ good post.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
I'm guessing that your upholding of that principle may be..inconsistent.
Not at all. In Scotland it would be *very* difficult to leave, totally different argument
In all honesty, I hope next time we get a Sindy vote rUK tries love bombing Scotland the whole time, not just try scare stories, however true they might or might not be.
It'd certainly be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the two campaigning strategies. I get the impression that there's not an awful lot of love to spare in any corner of the UK though (even less than 2014).
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
Isn't the fact that it is so hard to disentangle ourselves is itself an indication that we need to be less attached to something that is not working for our interests?
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
^^^ good post.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
I'm guessing that your upholding of that principle may be..inconsistent.
How difficult it is to leave has to be tempered with "how good/bad is it to stay".
Both Sindy ref and Brexit proved it is difficult to leave.
Only one referendum campaign convinced voters that staying was a good deal.
Mr. Nabavi, yeah, it's like Labour and Keynes. They remember the bit about splurging money during a bust, and then magically forget the bit about running a tight ship during a boom.
Isn't the fact that it is so hard to disentangle ourselves is itself an indication that we need to be less attached to something that is not working for our interests?
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
^^^ good post.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
I'm guessing that your upholding of that principle may be..inconsistent.
Not at all. In Scotland it would be *very* difficult to leave, totally different argument
In all honesty, I hope next time we get a Sindy vote rUK tries love bombing Scotland the whole time, not just try scare stories, however true they might or might not be.
It'd certainly be interesting to compare the respective efficiency of the two campaigning strategies. I get the impression that there's not an awful lot of love to spare in any corner of the UK though.
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I do remember.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
Does Anna Soubry know?
She does, that's why she's backing leaving The Customs Union and joining A Customs Union.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
I'd be up for that to replace council tax
Absolutely it should replace council tax over time - and i suspect that would be a good way of gaining some public acceptance for a new tax, if it was replacing an old one.
Surely all you are doing is going back to the old rates system - which we wanted to get rid of because it had become unworkable.
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I do remember.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
Does Anna Soubry know?
She does, that's why she's backing leaving The Customs Union and joining A Customs Union.
When it is put in blank terms like that it does actually sound rather silly, whether it is or not, which is why I suspect for most people it is just a case of 'Is it is softer/closer to remain'?
Mr. Eagles, as Mr. kle4 indicated, I didn't say the electorate couldn't change it's mind.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
As some of us pointed out at the time, there's only a bad deal available.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
Those of those who voted Leave consider that the current deal is a bad one.
That's a perfectly acceptable view.
I was taking umbrage at Mr Dancer's comment that the political class are trying to get us a bad deal.
Leaving the EU will be a bad deal no matter how good a deal we get, we lose a lot of the benefits.
An easy case to make, when you don't accept there will be any upsides, and when even those talking of upsides acknowledge they will take years - perhaps a decade - to really show through.
But Leavers are risk-takers. Remainers are scaredy-cats.....
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Will a computer model be providing an annual update on the value of each parcel of land or will it be a civil servant with a clipboard ?
What could possibly go wrong ?
Seems to work in many places. In New Zealand your “rateable value” is set every couple of years by the council. You are free to appeal of course.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
Would lead to a lot of council houses in city centres being not viable to maintain unless they were tower blocks.
Plus a lot of grannys being forced out of their houses.
Mr. Nabavi, yeah, it's like Labour and Keynes. They remember the bit about splurging money during a bust, and then magically forget the bit about running a tight ship during a boom.
These days that is true of all politicians not just Labour ones.
Ironically the last "tight ship" from a Keynesian perspective was run by Labour in 1997-2001, before Brown started splashing the cash.
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I do remember.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
Does Anna Soubry know?
She does, that's why she's backing leaving The Customs Union and joining A Customs Union.
And I'll ask the same question of her as I'd ask of Jeremy Corbyn: how much will A Customs Union cost us? Ball-park number will do, Anna. Show us some cost-benefit analysis.....
I’m still unconvinced there is “clear blue water” between May and Corbyn. Who can actually define the difference between a customs union and a customs arrangement?
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
"The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence."
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
If Corbyn commits to staying in the single market and preserving free movement he kills his chance of a majority at the next general election e.g. 17 out of the top 20 Labour target seats held by the Tories voted Leave, as well as allowing the ECJ to block his nationalisation plans. Which is of course why he has made consistently clear he opposes staying in the single market
I suspect a fig leaf on migration can be negotiated for a cost. There has to be SOMETHING politicians can point to as a win from Brexit. If the UK signs up to their agenda for everything else, the EU would probably cut some slack, as long as membership is always the better option.
The easiest way to resolve it would be to impose the transition controls for 7 years on Eastern European migration we could have had in 2004 but Blair failed to take
If JRM & co get their desired hard brexit the only reason immigration will fall is because the economy has tanked. If, as they predict, a hard brexit does not seriously damage the economy, immigration will continue at high levels. After all non-EU immigration could have been capped at any time but the government has signularly failed to do so.
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
How does their proposed amendment assist us?
Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.
I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
Of course you will, even when you are being dishonest or foolish you cannot afford to concede any points - just like you couldn't with the idiocy you were pushing about PCSOs on the previous thread.
So.
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).
I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
Let us use the Turkish model.
For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I do remember.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
Does Anna Soubry know?
She does, that's why she's backing leaving The Customs Union and joining A Customs Union.
When it is put in blank terms like that it does actually sound rather silly, whether it is or not, which is why I suspect for most people it is just a case of 'Is it is softer/closer to remain'?
Indeed, I'd call it part of the new trade agreement.
Mr. Eagles, the Turkish model? Making us subject to the EU negotiating deals, whereby third party nations can enjoy benefits exporting to us (as per EU nations) but we do not enjoy the corresponding benefits exporting to them (unlike EU nations but like Turkey)?
It's almost as if staying in A/The/Ze/I Can't Believe It's Not The Customs Union is a bad idea.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
So the tax is not based on the value of the home but the value of the land underneath the home. So negative equity doesn't come into it.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
I'd be up for that to replace council tax
Absolutely it should replace council tax over time - and i suspect that would be a good way of gaining some public acceptance for a new tax, if it was replacing an old one.
Surely all you are doing is going back to the old rates system - which we wanted to get rid of because it had become unworkable.
Mr. Nabavi, yeah, it's like Labour and Keynes. They remember the bit about splurging money during a bust, and then magically forget the bit about running a tight ship during a boom.
These days that is true of all politicians not just Labour ones.
Ironically the last "tight ship" from a Keynesian perspective was run by Labour in 1997-2001, before Brown started splashing the cash.
When Brown continued to run the economy along the same lines as if Ken Clarke had still been Chancellor....
She won't be facing an entirely united Labour Party. There's the Labour Leavers plus Caroline Flint and other Brexit means Brexit Remainers. Tories flirting with the idea of rebelling night ask themselves if they really want to hand Jeremy Corbyn this victory.
Country before party.
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
How does their proposed amendment assist us?
Protects trade and the economy ensuring no disruption to trade.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
No it doesn't. If you think that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I have written reports from people who have worked, inter alia at the WTO, who say otherwise.
I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
Of course you will, even when you are being dishonest or foolish you cannot afford to concede any points - just like you couldn't with the idiocy you were pushing about PCSOs on the previous thread.
So.
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).
I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
Let us use the Turkish model.
Do for non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
Pfff. You and your 'facts' and your 'evidence'. Typical treacherous Euro-shill. What's wrong with a good, old-fashioned, proudly BRITISH baseless assertion, eh!
Mr. Eagles, you may (or may not, of course) recall that I said many times I was fairly relaxed about leaving the EU in terms of a spectrum of reasonable deals. The only absolute red line I had was the customs union, and not being in it.
I do remember.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
Does Anna Soubry know?
She does, that's why she's backing leaving The Customs Union and joining A Customs Union.
And I'll ask the same question of her as I'd ask of Jeremy Corbyn: how much will A Customs Union cost us? Ball-park number will do, Anna. Show us some cost-benefit analysis.....
I believe the government's impact assessment showed that remaining in The/A Customs Union was of a huge net benefit to the country than not.
Comments
Mr. B/Mr. Eagles, cheers.
I am unconvinced that an attempt to overturn a democratic decision by means of a voting system that was also rejected by the voters, following the political class deliberately negotiating a horrendous deal for us, would necessarily improve the domestic political atmosphere.
It wouldn't be as bad as the Commons just reversing Article 50. But, short of that, it might be the worst single outcome for entrenching opinions and turning a polarised political situation into perpetual trench warfare.
It's not money in their bank account.
Say if they were suffering negative equity, would a LVT mean they get money back from the government?
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
I think we will end up in both the SM and CU. Corbyn is ahead of May on the curve. Corbyn as Talleyrand is quite something. Indeed, Corbyn as a statesman.
If you own land worth say 50k, then you might pay 500 pounds a year. If the value of the land fell for whatever reason, you would pay less per year. I can't see how the land could be valued negatively, but i suppose if it was you would receive money from the govt.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/
Economically speaking its been described as a perfect tax - almost impossible to avoid, and with side effects of improving market efficiency. I also think there's a very good case that it could contribute to improving the stability of the housing market and reducing the risk of a future financial crisis in that area.
Now, personally I don't think the AV point is that big a deal, but I do think for future political satisfaction a second round or simply a binary choice would be better.
Sadly, BoZo and chums conned 17m people into thinking it was easy, and now they have to deal with the consequences.
What could possibly go wrong ?
But it is in something some remainers have pointed out, that some people have changed their minds because of the way the brexit process has proceeded, and the type of brexit we will now be getting, therefore it simply makes no sense to act as though ending up with a harder brexit has no impact on it being the type of brexit any particular leaver wanted. Given some still hope for remain, it is in fact quite relevant if the harder brexit we are heading for is still 'your brexit' for all leave voters.
If we had a rerun I don't know which way I'd vote, frankly.
Arf.
The present system massively benefits those who are rich in housing assets. I’m in favour of change, although it would penalise me personally.
I said that the political class deliberately getting us a bad a deal in order to try and get the electorate to reverse a decision the political class never liked is bad for our domestic politics. (I also commented upon the three option problem etc).
*I assume in NI and ROI they still refer euphemistically to 'these islands' or some other generic phrase.
I know they are experts but I'll place more faith in their views than yours.
Because there's nothing that will be quite as good as our current deal.
England has been around a lot longer.
The biggest loser from such a policy would be say a widow living in a large old rectory in the Home Counties, the biggest winner an investment banker renting in Mayfair. Not a great sell
(I know we are different, a country of countries and all that)
Retirement age increases are not liked much either, but are grudgingly accepted. We need a similar long term approach, perhaps tapering into a comprehensive LVT regime by 2030.
So I assume you are accepting we should ask the same question every three years with laws that say the Government must act upon the result each time until a new referendum is held.
A recipe for chaos of course but oh so democratic.
In real news Billy Morgan was proud to carry the Union Flag.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/5667746/winter-olympics-2018-billy-morgan-rounds-off-team-gbs-olympic-joy-by-passing-out-at-a-celebration-party-then-carrying-the-union-flag-at-the-closing-ceremony/
In all honesty, I hope next time we get a Sindy vote rUK tries love bombing Scotland the whole time, not just try scare stories, however true they might or might not be.
I was taking umbrage at Mr Dancer's comment that the political class are trying to get us a bad deal.
Leaving the EU will be a bad deal no matter how good a deal we get, we lose a lot of the benefits.
We're leaving The Customs Union.
When I made my bet that we'd have another vote, it was on the basis the EU and pro-EU politicians here would deliberately get us the worst deal they could, to force a choice between staying in after or leaving on bad terms.
So.
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM ensure no disruption to trade? (here's a clue, it doesn't)
How exactly does being in the Customs Union but not the SM solve the Irish Border question? (here's another clue. It doesn't).
I hope whoever you were writing reports for will be trying to get their money back if that is the garbage you are writing.
Both Sindy ref and Brexit proved it is difficult to leave.
Only one referendum campaign convinced voters that staying was a good deal.
But Leavers are risk-takers. Remainers are scaredy-cats.....
Plus a lot of grannys being forced out of their houses.
Good luck with that in a manifesto.
Ironically the last "tight ship" from a Keynesian perspective was run by Labour in 1997-2001, before Brown started splashing the cash.
For non agricultural physical goods are there any customs restrictions between Turkey and The EU? Yes or No?
It's almost as if staying in A/The/Ze/I Can't Believe It's Not The Customs Union is a bad idea.
London
Con 616
Lab 1039
LD 117
Oth 79
Met + Unitary Whole council
Con 50
Lab 347
LD 57
Oth 17
District whole council
Con 151
Lab 61
LD 108
Oth 24