MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
No, you said European countries dont have any but they do, as part of a shared defence treaty.
That's not a belief or an opinion but a fact.
I’d say the Irish are reasonably comfortable that Russia wouldn’t invade galway and start working their way east
and, tbf, we haven’t finished fighting the British yet 😉
Reeves would argue that it’s not austerity, it’s balancing the checking account.
That's the problem — there isn't a checking account. That's nonsense.
Austerity doesn't "save" money, it means that the money isn't created in the first place.
We've had this imposed on us for fourteen years — how's that been working out?
Poverty in the UK today is systematic and is largely a political choice, not an economic one.
No, you said European countries dont have any but they do, as part of a shared defence treaty.
That’s not a belief or an opinion but a fact.
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that's not an opinion btw
It’s also not a first strike capability for the UK, as the title goes, it’s a deterrent, and the way the world’s going just now, potentially quite a useful tool to have.
LOL! I think the British "cousin" on the other side of the sea (the one that loves AR-15) is more likely to strike first while others would counter. Nobody is going to strike the British first because it is simply not worth the effort. Having said that there is another country that will strike first and they are located in the Middle East. You know who they are.
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that’s not an opinion btw
It kind of is, North Korea haven't been verified as having a nuclear weapons capability and Israel do not admit to having any as of yet, so only 7 nations in
Nine countries in the world have nuclear weapons. And that’s not an opinion btw
I don't think anyone is debating which countries have nuclear weapons, and which don't. The point you seem to be conveniently ignoring is that the rest of the UK military power is a little it, errm, ... lack lustre?
That's why it's important to have close ties and agreements with our neighbours, as invididual coutries can lean on thier allies when they are lacking, in return for reciprocal support in areas where they too are lacking.
That all sounds terribly socialist though, which makes me wonder why Corbyn is so anti EU and anti Trident.... yes we want socialism BUT NOT THAT KIND!!! I have to BE IN CHARGE!!!! That makes him more an autocrat than a socailist in my book.
I am not sure what the STW centrist line will be on this but it is certainly not something which I expected.
So I am looking forward to being told why Starmer is in fact completely right not to criticise trouble causing hate-monger Nigel Farage
Starmer refuses to criticise Farage after Southport conspiracy theory accusations
I couldn't be more opposed to George Osborne politically but I think he has got this completely correct:
“Farage is a mortal threat to the Tory party, as we’ve just seen at the last general election,” Osborne said on the Political Currency podcast. “He may well be a massive threat to Labour at the next general election. And yet all of the political establishment is saying: ‘Oh, please pipe down a bit and behave yourself, and you’re supposed to be an MP now’ rather than saying: ‘This is an absolute outrage, Farage.’ He’s not going to be deterred by all this. He’s going to thrive on it.”
And also the former counter-terror police chief Neil Basu :
On Wednesday, Basu accused Farage of “giving the EDL [English Defence League] succour, undermining the police, creating conspiracy theories and giving a false basis for the attacks on the police”.
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
Osborne is not in power so he say what he thinks without repercussions from the right wing press and certain (many?) member's of the Tory party, similar for the “former counter terror police chief Neil Basu” who, if still employed in that position most likely would not be able to criticise a current MP without being forced out, whereas Starmer would get crucified by all the right wingers coalescing against him.
whereas Starmer would get crucified by all the right wingers coalescing against him.
Sorry are you saying that Starmer won't criticise Nigel Farage and his dangerous rhetoric because he is scared of right wingers ganging up on him?
The only person at a risk of getting crucified is Nigel Farage for feeding dangerous misinformation which has had appalling consequences.
Well at least you appear to agree with George Osborne - the political establishment are scared of Nigel Farage.
Edit:
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
As Osborne points out, Nigel Farage is likely to be a massive threat to Labour at the next general election.
oh, cock off...
*NEWS FLASH*
the Uk electorate is pretty moderate, despite what you may read from certain sources, trying to make your left, or right. trying to start some shit...
..basicaly being a dick head...
The left or right thing is just a simple tag line .... grow the **** up.
Leo Varadkar had the correct response for the right wing arseholes who were rioting in Dublin last year
https://twitter.com/zoejardiniere/status/1818403967308591378?s=46&t=qvPR6lBfBXtAWZ-6beFWyA
Can we re-join the EU yet?
BoE just recently put out a paper explaining what really happened to gilt prices during sept - Oct 22 which were totally attributed to the Truss budget at the time by the media.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2024/fire-sales-of-safe-assets
Turns it wasn't quite what everyone was saying who repeatedly cited the Truss budget over and over as the cause.
I knew this ages ago but the damage has been done going forward with concept of 'unfunded' spending or cuts.
We all lose now because of the gross over simplification of false concept of 'unfunded.'
Like you lot have been saying about Reform simple solutions to complex problems.
Reeves is still reporting this now even with this document as the complete reason the economy is in a terrible place.
(Truss's tax cuts were stupid though - they don't work.)
Certainly interesting timing with the BoE cut yesterday - I thought the FED might go before. Looks like the BoE are not doing conflict with Labour I would say, and want to see growth asap or everyone is on the block. I feel this decision has sneaked forward a bit.
@ernie
I saw something yesterday more about the rioters but applied to Stamer not directly criticising Farage.
He basically said rioter/ protesters shouting and causing trouble and misinformation give an opportunity for mistrial to be called on grounds that a fair trail could not be established.
Similar for Farage, to directly criticise would show bias in any/ if any action had to be taken against him.
That’s the problem — there isn’t a checking account. That’s nonsense.
Each year the government(of which ever stripe) decides what they'll spend, and what they'll tax, once that's agreed in Parliament and becomes law, they BoE essentially creates an overdraft for the amount they want, and writes it down with the taxes the govt has decided it will collect. That's how govt departmental spending is done each year.
Reeves could pass new legislation to create the missing billions, or she could announce new taxes to cover the difference. The effect is the same after all... Reeves is doing the latter I think to do to the Tories exactly what the 2010 Tory govt did to Labour - ram home the message to the public that they aren't to be trusted with money, and to make sure that Tory profligacy isn't just swept under the carpet because they knew that they (the tories) themselves wouldn't have to do it. But also at the same time sends a message to the financial markets, that this govt is not going to 'do a Kwarteng' as I believe it's about to be called any minute now...
"See these new Taxes? This is the Tories fault, I'm just having to tidy up"
The irony of Osborne calling for a head-on confrontation with Farage is particularly amusing.
When his, and Cameron's cowardice in the face of Farage's rise facilitated the biggest political win for the UK far right in decades. Easy to pipe up from the safety of Lebedev's rag.
How does Ireland manage btw, without being part of NATO or having their own WMDs? Would you say their government is failing “the very first role of government”?
Ireland is protected by the UK and has been for 70 years. Typhoon fighters can be scrambled and in Irish airspace with the agreement of the Irish Government. In 2020 cruise missile and nuclear-capable Russian "Bear" bombers were escorted from Irish airspace by UK aircraft
Ireland spends 0.2% GDP on defence, the lowest in the EU, the UK has more capable trainer aircraft in Wales than anything that the Irish Air Corps has
Who knows what happens in the seas around Ireland? They don't and they don't have an anti-submarine capability either 🙂
You have to be very careful how you criticise and take on Farage and his ilk, as Cameron and Osbourne found out the hard way. It is so easy to put fuel on his fire of being "anti political establishment". The "I'm not going to talk about him, but about the people directly affected" line may seem overly cautious to the chatterati, but there was a time where not making these political opportunists the story would have been a totally normal responsible response by a PM.
“What I am saying is my focus is on the families, the victims who are at the heart of this, and I think that that should be the focus for everybody. And anybody who says or does anything that impedes their ability to get the justice that they deserve cannot claim to be acting in their best interests, because they’re not.”
Because of the numbers Farage (spits on ground) needs to be treated as a safety problem for the country as a whole rather than a political problem for the Labour government. The tricky bit is not knowing where the Tories are going to end up. If they're going to move to the right to be able to absorb Reform, it puts a whole different perspective on things.
Personally I'd just proscribe Reform and any future incarnation, but apparently idiots and thugs should be allowed to vote too.
Then you end up in the " no platform" debate. where do you draw the line? I do not see reform as so very different to the tories right wingers.
No platform for racists seems an easy solution but dig down a bit and its full of issues. who decides who gets de platformed?
It’s a zero sum game for Starmer with that one
I agree. Criticising him is pretty much exactly the response Farage wants, as it puts him front and centre again and gives him the opportunity to say "The establishment don't want me asking question, they want to close me down" which is just what his supporters want to hear. Ignoring him isn't going to make him go away, but at least doesn't shift the story to him.
Labour cannot in my opinion be putting itself in the position of being 'the answer' to Farage's nonsense. Because 1. it's nonsense, Farage just pedals conspiracy theory crap, and can/will just make shit up, and you'd be forever trying to answer it, and 2. Regardless of any policy Labour puts in place to try to prise folks away from him, Farage supporters are not going to just suddenly have a damascene moment and decide that he's talking nonsense. Sort one issue out, and the response from him will just be some other far-fetched horseshit 'grievance' that needs attending to...Labour should of course enact policies that help the less well off, but not a way of politically undermining Farage, they can't win that war.
Are people actually complaining that our PM is not giving any attention to a person who craves attention and wants to play the wounded party all the time, honestly, if that's how you think i'd avoid playing games like chess!
You had to go away and have a long think as to why Starmer is right not to criticise Nigel Farage, didn't you Nick? I knew that you wouldn't let me down though.
Maybe Jess Phillips, who is Labour Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls at the Home Office, should be told why it is wrong to publicly criticise Nigel Farage?
Are people actually complaining that our PM is not giving any attention to a person who craves attention and wants to play the wounded party all the time, honestly, if that’s how you think i’d avoid playing games like chess!
LOL! I'm lovin the Idea of STWers claiming that Nigel Farage shouldn't be given the attention which he craves!
The political contortions which centrists can perform is really something!
Edit: Starmer was literally being asked about his opinions concerning the dangerous rhetoric from Nigel Farage, so the topic of Nigel Farage was being discussed. Saying that he didn't want to comment on the words of others didn't stop Farage being mentioned, it just gave the impression that Starmer wasn't too bothered.
I bet he would be keen to comment on the words of others if he thought those words were anti-semitic!
Starmer did criticise Farage, but did it collectively rather than making him the hero by name. Note that many Conservative politicians (including some sitting MPs) are also playing this “what are they not telling us” game. Something Osbourne should perhaps reflect on, and could maybe even choose to comment on. Many in his party are part of the problem, and not just those that openly embrace Farage as an individual.
The political contortions which centrists can perform is really something!
It's the standard centrist approach to populists/fascists. Try not to upset them too much and hope the problem goes away.
Anyway Starmer's problem are only just getting started. In addition to failing to stamp out this surge in far right thuggery, in a few months time he's going to have collapsing hospitals and skyrocketing waiting lists when the doctors start working to rule. One of the few things voters were demanding in the election were sorting out the waiting lists and being able to get a GP appointment. Both look like they're going to get a lot worse.
He's also got a major problem brewing with council tax reform. If the rumoured 0.5% of property values is going to replace 1990s bandings thats going to go down like a pint of cold sick with an enormous number of working and middle class home owners, especially in the south east and London.
he could solve both the above problems by properly funding GPs and local authorities, but that's not possible thanks to his chancellor's obsession with austerity and 'balancing the books'. Still I suppose they have a couple of months to engineer a rethink before the budget, but I doubt that's going to happen. Reeves looks like she's determined to play the role of fiscal grim reaper.
mattyfezFull Member
Can we re-join the EU yet?
Yes please.
Reeves looks like she’s determined to play the role of fiscal grim reaper.
It's an interesting tactic; we've had access to the books and there isn't a smoking gun so we'll have to play Conservative mismanagement for all it's worth. Five years to get rid of Labour's "tax and spend" mantle by adopting a debt rule similar to that of the Conservatives (but framed differently)
What changes does the Labour government propose?
Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 General Election proposes the following fiscal rules:
• balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues
• debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecastLabour’s debt rule appears to be the same as the existing debt rule.
To change the existing rules, the Chancellor will need to lay a revised Charter before Parliament. The Charter will come into force once it has been approved with a vote of the House of Commons
She could change the rules and while she's at it force any economic claims to go through the OBR to ensure their veracity and to avoid some of the outright lies that are used in the run up to an election
Just some random thoughts.
I've seen some prices of good starting to come down, slightly, more so than they have in the last year.
Public Sector appears to be getting some big (relative to the last 5/10 yrs) pay increases.
Wins on both counts for me.
But there appear to be more riots (or is this just right wing press making sure it gets publicised)
More talks of strikes
Reversing of privitisaion, going back in to Europe.
So actually a shift to liberalism, even anarchy which leads to lower productivity
It’s an interesting tactic
It's a suicidal tactic/strategy. She's trying to repeat the tories trick of blaming everything they don't do on the previous govt. The difference between now and 2010 though is that voters want labour to fix all the problems they see in public services, the NHS and schools etc, and they don't care how much they need to spend to do it because they'd rather be able to get a GP appointment and not wait 16 hours in A+E. If Labour fail on these basic requirements then voters will very quickly decide they are incompetent and will vote for someone else.
because they’d rather be able to get a GP appointment and not wait 16 hours in A+E. If Labour fail on these basic requirements then voters will very quickly decide they are incompetent and will vote for someone else
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
At least Labour have now gone back on their word on tax rises and are saying they will increase taxes.
Tough choices
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1819297166092808227
Tory voters like him
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1819297164188606805
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
Where is your evidence for that assumption? Of course it could be fixed in one parliament, given the finances and the political will. What you really mean is that it can't be fixed by not spending any more money and taking some more radical action. And they don't have to fix it completely, all the voters will want is some visible signs of improvement. Are you saying that's not possible?
he could solve both the above problems by properly funding GPs and local authorities, but that’s not possible thanks to his chancellor’s obsession with austerity and ‘balancing the books’.
Streeting has increased the contract uplift from the 1.9% settlement under the Tories to accept the recommended 6% (backdated to Apr 24) . He's also amended the rules around additionally funded support staff to allow recruitment of GP and nurses (and increased funding by another £82million for 24/25). It won't solve all the issues, and I think the BMA are still considering action. - Our own GP running costs has increased 16% from last years and 32% overall since the pandemic.
Can't speak for local govt.
Trouble is any change in the NHS, and I assume schools will take more than one parliament to even get close to making the change required.
We're all okay with the time it might take but the intention to do it is crippled by fiscal rules.
Drop the fiscal rules - we might start to make the moves we all want. Reeves will not last - with this sort of a plan or act, or whatever the hell she's up to. It's the opposite of what we need.
I'm seeing weakness in various parts of the economy probably from the backdraft of those interest rates. Things are lagging and could get much worse. That's not Labour's fault but will be become Labour's problem.
Where is your evidence for that assumption?
Doctor training is a minimum of 8 years, nurse training 3 years. Specialists nurses who can take up some of the doctors work are a minimum of 6 years. Edit: This is just the tip of the iceberg. Most specialist teams have massive shortages.
Much of the damage with intake of doctors has already be done with generations coming through. People are not applying to become doctors because the pay and standards are so poor compared to comparative jobs (including the level of dent incurred whilst in training).
Improving the number of doctors in the NHS is going to take years, much more than 4!
Labour have said they will reduce waiting list by asking doctors to work evenings and weekends. Except they have forgotten 1. Doctors are already burnt out from COVID 2. There are not enough doctors so they already work long hours 3. Refusal to change pension rules means that for many turning up to work costs them money, and stopping the use of LLPs
Doctor training is a minimum of 8 years, nurse training 3 years. Specialists nurses who can take up some of the doctors work are a minimum of 6 years.
Well I'll defer to expert opinion like Nick's but I doubt it's just about the number of doctors and nurses. Even if it were we could import them from elsewhere and take measures to prevent them leaving (more pay basically). And then there's prevention strategies and other stuff to reduce demand for NHS services. The starting point though is ensuring that the funding is there to do whatever is required. If we start from the position of 'there is no more money' anything we do try do will fail.
The general point is not about the specifics of what needs to happen to fix the NHS and schools etc, it's that trying to do anything in an environment of austerity with a narrative that 'we have no money' is doomed to failure. FFS if you're a new govt promising 'change and renewal' at least give yourselves a fighting chance!
If we start from the position of ‘there is no more money’ anything we do try do will fail.
I don't think that's the starting point, there's clearly an appetite to both find the funding to somehow resolve the recruitment gap.(Happy to explain how it works, but it's boringly complex) and look at the contract funding for GP going forward. There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts, it just that few (if any really) GP practices can afford to offer them a position. The GP contract needs further revision, that's probably coming next year by the sounds of it.
BMA are encouraging GPs to take industrial action, and I an understand why. A quick run around at my practices reveals very mixed feelings from the partners and GPs about it.
Well I’ll defer to expert opinion like Nick’s
Oh I hoped I knew something about the field I work in.....
The general point is not about the specifics of what needs to happen to fix the NHS and schools etc, it’s that trying to do anything in an environment of austerity with a narrative that ‘we have no money’ is doomed to failure
Agreed and therefore Labour were very dishonest in the election campaign. Of course they knew any change would cost money, yet they said no tax increases, in fact even cutting NI. Now surprisingly when they are in power, it has come as a big shock that there is no money and they need to put taxes up !
Would have been interesting to see how much vote they would have lost if they had been honest and said they were going to put taxes up pre election.
There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts
unfortunately this is not the case when you get to speciality training in Hospitals
There are currently sufficient GP trainees to fill vacant posts, it just that few (if any really) GP practices can afford to offer them a position. The GP contract needs further revision, that’s probably coming next year by the sounds of it.
So it is down to money then rather than lack of doctors. That's an easy problem to solve in this parliament.
Everything is ultimately down to money
Undoubtedly that's more that can be done but that's ^ not a bad start.
They're also making a start on the asylum issue, where the Tories had really just talked shit for 5 years. Accommodating asylum seekers was costing nearly 5bn a year, because they were all in a weird limbo entirely of the government's making where they could neither be granted or denied any right to leave.
But yeah, they're not doing anything. Bastards. ?
People are not applying to become doctors because the pay and standards are so poor compared to comparative jobs
How many medicine places are offered to prospective students via clearing? Training places for medicine has been a political choice for decades. The issue is one of supply and demand, and the supply side has failed. We chose to source clinicians from outside the UK. Then closed the door on the EU. The majority of new GMC registrations have been from foreign doctors. This was an interesting debate.
Interestingly, there is also a shortage of pilots in the UK, and this is a financial supply side issue rather than training places. Airlines withdrew sponsorship some time ago. Debt is at least as large as medicine, and no funding is available. Guess how that shortage is being met? Airlines are now opening pilot academies and sponsoring scores of trainees. They won’t be trained in the UK as many of the flying schools had a hard time over Covid. But the market has reacted.
I'm not quite sure what some folk on here are expecting, it's running a country, not a popularity contest, i'm pretty sure that Starmer, Reeves, et al would rather be going in front of the press talking about spending vast sums on improving, rather than looking for cuts, i'm not sure how folk think they are desperate to bring in austerity and destroy the country, these are the people in the cabinet, who are supported by an entire government department, and the best experts on the planet assisting them in planning.
Yes, there are experts who state the opposite, same as in every field, we have the Richard Murphy's, and the Stephanie Kelton's, who espouse MMT and other options, but they are not inside looking out, they have not got the same information to support their theories that the advisors have who are providing the policies to government.
I’m not quite sure what some folk on here are expecting
If you read my posts on the election thread you'd have seen that I thought we could expect outstanding disputes with doctors etc to be settled, an increase in public sector pay and cash injections for the NHS and local authorities. I was right on the pay deals and public sector pay rises, but so far we haven't seen much evidence of much more money for the NHS and local authorities. In fact on funding we've seen the opposite, which I find very dissappointing because lets be honest that's the very minimum I think we should expect from a labour govt. There's a whole lot more a labout govt should be doing, but if they can't even find money for the NHS then what hope is there of them doing the other stuff?
they said no tax increases
They detailed some very specific tax increases (see earlier in this thread for discussion around one of them), and ruled some others out (eg NI & income tax). Plenty more areas where they refused to say and left it to future budgets. More tax rises will be coming, they are unlikely to be anything you see directly on your pay slip though if you are PAYE.
I thought we could expect outstanding disputes with doctors etc to be settled, an increase in public sector pay and cash injections for the NHS and local authorities.
so you've had fifty percent of what you expected in the first month? and they haven't done a budget yet. bastards. 🙂
I think they have done pretty well and generally set the right tone apart from the stupid fiscal rules stuff. Unless they dramatically change that then nothing major is going to change. And yes, we knew all about that before they were elected which is why some of were not that happy about it.
If they had another Covid would they insist of fiscal rules and 'balancing the books", no didn't think so. Again, just a case of priorities and how much they really want to make really noticeable positive changes and how quickly.
It's the fact that to me that they're flat out incorrect on finances. I mean nearly all of this thinking is Conservative macro logic.
Failed Conservative logic.
We've had the austerity test - massive disaster. Why would you choose not to learn from that?
It's also the fact that GDP follows spending not the other way around.
On the back of all this it's looming hard certainly in the USA currently that recession - a proper one, on its way.
Now it's easy to just call recession and get it wrong but eventually those interest rates would do something bad.
We're probably about to go through that too and that is why the BoE started to tweak rates this week
But they've left them too high for too long in the belief that interest rates have been sticky. Well they're sticky because you've been adding money to the economy without taxation to adjust the amount of money.
A recession with no spending = depression.
No one needs that. Labour don't need that.
The black-hole thing was a ridiculously stupid move. Bringing nonsense terms into the public consciousness and saddling themselves with logic they can't really explain. That weren't accurate either. It's the Tory playbook of awful sound bites. This is the opposite of what grown-up speak is.
I mean, these OBR forecasts themselves are based on what might happen in five years if the economy meets certain targets.
Totally ridiculous.
You have to hit the ground running with good plans - think big or what will follow will be disasterous especially because of where we are in public discourse - pandemic, cost of living crisis, tory ruin - what comes next? Civil disobedience and it will be pinned on Labour.
No one is asking them to fix things in the first month - we don't need to keep going there - we are asking them to prime the engines to not make terrible false excuses for what they can't do.
How does Ireland manage btw, without being part of NATO or having their own WMDs? Would you say their government is failing “the very first role of government”?
Ukraine is in talks to defend Ireland in a bilateral security agreement https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/08/2/7468675/ 🙂
@rone They're going to need the backdoor ID scheme that was kite flown yesterday. The spirit of Blunkett walks amongst us still and the Blair taint is still there.
<Deleted>
Answered my own question.
He’s also got a major problem brewing with council tax reform. If the rumoured 0.5% of property values is going to replace 1990s bandings thats going to go down like a pint of cold sick with an enormous number of working and middle class home owners, especially in the south east and London.
That would suit me quite nicely...I'd be about £600 per year better off!!
Even someone with a £250,000 house would only be paying £1250 per year, which presumably would also represent a saving for them???
You'd need to be in a house worth probably 400k or more before you end up paying more than you do now.
You’d need to be in a house worth probably 400k or more before you end up paying more than you do now.
Which is every house for miles around where I live. Even a cheap builder done up pretty rough ex council house is up for sale for £450K. So most people are going to be paying around £4K rather than the £2.3k today. Not the best way to tax is it as believe it or not a lot of the people living where I do are not actually that well off, they have just lived there for a long time.
Yes, I know, they should just simply move out of the area they have lived in for 40 years and get a cheap place 50 miles away.
Well something needs to happen... think of it as a structrual adjustment in the overpriced housing market.
Using your example, a £450k house @ 0.5% will be paying £2250 per year in council tax.
I actually think it's quite a sensible thing to do...the banding system was always a mess, It's quite amusing when the champagne socialists on here get all bent out of shape about it.
Taxes are always things for other people to pay.
most people are going to be paying around £4K rather than the £2.3k today.
You might need to re-check your maths on that,
0.5% of 450000 is 2250.
hahahah!
0.5% of value would suit me, as i'd get a discount from it, but that's not really going to work across the country with helping fund councils, reason i live where i do is due to the lower house prices, but i don't think there's a corresponding drop in people who will need council assistance just because house prices here are 20% lower.
Doubt it, sounds the same as expensive cars, hit the higher levels, but it's not really stopped sales, maybe it's just time to bring back the poll tax!
I'll pay a fair chunk more on 0.5% property value tho whatever I guess - I knew I was probably voting for a tax rise! Any clue how they'll do the valuation? Are they going to refresh it yearly or just a one off like 91?
Any clue how they’ll do the valuation?
Very good point, that's another question entirely... they could use Zoopla I guess... but that's not an independent valuation, just a broad aproximation based on previous market trends.
So if it came down to an argument as to whether a property is is worth 400k or 600k...it's pretty ambiguous.
0.5% of value would suit me, as i’d get a discount from it, but that’s not really going to work across the country with helping fund councils
It would be a significant discount for me, and I'm not entirely comfortable with that. The area I lived in has some significant deprivation, so everywhere is fairly cheap apart from a couple of pockets that I dont believe are big enough to counter the cheap areas.
It would be a significant discount for me, and I’m not entirely comfortable with that. The area I lived in has some significant deprivation, so everywhere is fairly cheap apart from a couple of pockets that I dont believe are big enough to counter the cheap areas.
True, maybe something like 0.7% would be more fair than 0.5%?
So if it came down to an argument as to whether a property is is worth 400k or 600k…it’s pretty ambiguous.
The Valuation Office Agency already values properties for council tax and business rates, and resolves disputes on both.
The problem will be it will generate a new income stream for the shady "are you paying too much tax" ambulance chasers who will take a fee for handling an appeal you can do yourself for free, whether its valid or not. Legislation had to be used to tackle them 5-6 years ago as they very nearly broke the whole system by flooding it with spurious claims, wasting millions of tax payers pounds.
apart from a couple of pockets that I dont believe are big enough to counter the cheap areas
More funds needs to come from central government. Increasingly relying on local taxes, as we have been in the last decade or so, further embeds and exacerbates inequality. The opposite of “levelling up”. Tax wealth more, wherever it is, and spend more where it is needed more.
Also suggest we improve transport links to the North of England… but that basic requirement to help rebalance our economy seems to be treated as unachievable these days, sadly.
The Valuation Office Agency already values properties for council tax and business rates, and resolves disputes on both.
It's an interesting but very flawed point.
A house, for example, is only worth as much as you can sell it for. Untill you sell it, it's pure speculation.
The problem will be it will generate a new income stream for the shady “are you paying too much tax” ambulance chasers who will take a fee for handling an appeal you can do yourself for free, whether its valid or not.
We already have that with estate agents who take a percentage of sale price rather than a fixed fee for a sale.
A house, for example, is only worth as much as you can sell it for. Untill you sell it, it’s pure speculation.
So you base the valuation on known sale prices at a certain date from the Land Registry data. Put houses into £25k bands, or £50k. Like council tax, but revalue every 3-4 years.
Keep It Simple
You might need to re-check your maths on that,
0.5% of 450000 is 2250.
The £450K example was for a done up ex council house. The average price in the area is around £800K hence the £4K.
Paying £4K a year for the shit services we get doesn't seem like good value. I would just scrap council tax all together and allocate the money from central government to each council based on number of people living in borough, number of people needing care in borough, number of children needing schools in borough and so on.
Basing it on value of house is stupid. If you want a wealth tax on housing then have that as a separate central tax.
So you base the valuation on known sale prices at a certain date from the Land Registry data. Put houses into £25k bands, or £50k. Like council tax, but revalue every 3-4 years.
Keep It Simple
Sorry I may have not made my point very well.. . nothing has value (in this monetary context) until it is sold and paid for.
Let's take a car for example...I want to sell my old fiesta for £2000. That doesn't mean it's worth £2000.
I eventualy sell it for £1550, so thats what it's worth, at that particular point in time.
Making the assumption (lol!) that the governemt is running correctly, then that would mean tax rises.
Where those tax rises are targeted is a matter of debate.
Yep, great. Why should councils have to pay social care for example when it is a national thing and pot luck on how many need it in whatever borough and worse still that impacting what councils can spend on actual council stuff.
Making the assumption (lol!) that the governemt is running correctly, then that would mean tax rises.
Oh I understood from this thread that the government could supply as much money as they want to without raising taxes.
Oh I understood from this thread that the government could supply as much money as they want to without raising taxes.
You haven't understood it correctly then as nobody has said that. And the point I am making is that instead of taxing for local services being based on however much your house is worth you get the taxes from elsewhere which would amount to the same but remove the nonsense about council budgets with money going to councils from central source based on their needs for social care as an example, i.e. 10,000 people need social care so council receives 10,000 x £n for that year.
The £4k I would have paid in council tax will come out of increased income tax or maybe some wealth tax if you really want to tax based on a persons house value. It may even help with the ridiculous property prices, who knows.