1. get a judgement from the small claims court
2. Wait for him not to pay it
3. Pay £20 to escalate it to the High court
4. Request enforcement by court enforcement officers at no cost to yourself – any available assets will be seized and your ex-tenant has no right to refuse them entry when they arrive unannounced

Total cost to you – £50

Labour: Pork and pickle – the staple of the working classes but these days possessed of an unshakable whiff of gentrification

Shouldn’t that be:

Labour: Urban farmed spelt-fed Pork with juniper and pomegranate pickle ?

Which other large scale ‘industry’ would have been subsidised to the same £££ as the finance sector just to stay alive?

Before the crash Financial Services were paying corporation tax and income taxes to the tune of 60% of the NHS budget every year. The massive loss of FS jobs is one of the reasons that the deficit is proving very difficult to reduce – for all the talk of building new industries that create jobs and wealth the reality is that we’ve knackered one of the sectors that has contributed amongst the most in financial terms over the last 15 years. Even the “bailout” will largely be repaid in full, so overall we’re just left looking at an increasing gap in tax receipts – likely to accentuated if the likes of HSBC and StanChart do relocate

but how about renationalising a few things and providing work at a fair rate of pay that way?

And where is the magic money tree that would pay for this / are you personally committed to paying significantly more to use the same services?

“Has to be infinitely better than Cameron. With his elitist paedo cronies”

It’s a good job we don’t have the evidence of what several Labour councils did / didn’t do over the course of a decade in order to stop thousands of young girls being systematically drugged, kidnapped, sold for sex and generally abused. Oh, wait…

So it’s not a party political issue – it’s an issue of our society at all levels not doing enough to protect the vulnerable.

The current deficit including pensions liability is around £2.4 trillion (more than the value of all the property in the uk). Is adding to that a smart or dumb idea?

wanmankylung

This shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Possibly – and my figure is wrong for sure.

The 2013 / 2014 Whole Government accounts show net liabilities standing at £1.851 Trillion, or which £1.3 Trillion is unfunded public sector pension schemes. Current value of all UK property is around £5.7 Bn, so overall public sector debt is actually only equivalent to 31% of the value of every house in the country.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419973/PU1786_WGA_2013-14_Accounts.pdf

Brilliant news – so we could be more like France, Spain and Italy all of whom have much higher unemployment / no economic growth and as a result are having to make further cuts to public services.

Unless you genuinely believe in a magic money tree the reality is that economic growth pays for everything. If the economy slows / shrinks public services have to be cut (as Labour have already committed to doing). The current deficit including pensions liability is around £2.4 trillion (more than the value of all the property in the uk). Is adding to that a smart or dumb idea?

Seems to me that a tory vote is a frank and honest admission that you have no concern for people who for whatever reason find themselves dependent on the govt in some way. For those of us with jobs/careers/houses/cars/fancy mountain bikes it doesn’t make much difference, we can stand on our own two feet. For those who are on benefits, rely on state help to care for relatives or themselves, those who have slipped through the net of the jobs market, kids who don’t have well-off parents to fund them through higher education, the homeless, those in need of medical help, basically anyone who needs a govt provided service to help them with the basic necessities of life, then a tory govt will be a disaster. And for those of you voting for this, at least you’re being honest about not giving a sh*t about it. Hopefully you won’t find yourself in a similar situation one day.

So is your view that cases like the one below, albeit an outlier do not merit any reform of welfare or tightening of the rules? Even if it takes thousands of families paying tax to fund each case like this?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/556012/Titina-Nzolameso-migrant-mum-court-fight-new-London-home?utm_source=Outbrain&utm_medium=externalwidget&utm_term=expressshowbiz&utm_campaign=outbrainfebruary

1. because outside of politics he’s never had as much as a paper round by way of responsibility.
2. he’s seeded “class” based division whilst himself being privately educated and has inherited £millions and on the other side has created a sense of “entitlement” in those who could pay their own way but choose not to (so not people who genuinely can’t e.g. for health reasons)
3. He talks about the “rich” and the rich needing to pay more but himself lives in a £3m house that was inherited with reportedly little / no tax paid as a result of a series of beneficial trusts.
4. Because he repeatedly says things he knows to be untrue – he’d rather score cheap political points and get himself into power than work constructively to progress the lot of everyone in Britain
5. Because he apparently has a sense of a divine right that he will be Prime Minister
6. Because even though everyone else in the country can see that Ed Balls is useless, he still knows best.

As for the chancellors, they’re even worse.

George Osborne – nasty posh school boy interested only in looking after his rich chums.

This kind of stuff just makes my pish boil as the evidence to the contrary is quite overwhelming:
– systemic approach to avoid UK tax avoidance (litigation on schemes like ice breaker), as well as pushing a europe wide coordinated effort to catch the likes of amazon and starbucks
– the rich paying more as a % of total tax than ever before
-marginal tax rates on earnings over £100K at 47% to 62% – both significantly higher than Labour

The “nasty posh” bit just seems to be a re-hash of the disgusting class based / divisive politics Ed Milband has been pushing for years. By all accounts (including OECD) George Osborne has actually done a good job and showed himself to be competent – unless the original poster has actually met him / knows him the “nasty and posh” says more about the mind of the poster than anything else and reflects the increasingly selfist / selfish / society that harms everyone.

Most job “creation” has been zero hours contracts or working in low grade, low paid service industries.
More shelf stackers isn’t going to help the country that much.

From FactCheck:

Key points:

The statistics do not and cannot show an “epidemic” in zero hours contracts. Comparisons of the number of people on zero hours contracts over time are not reliable, as the Office for National Statistics makes clear.
The statistics do show that 66% of people on zero hours contracts fall in the category of ‘does not want more hours’. The statistics alone do not show that everybody on zero hours contracts, or even a majority of them, are dissatisfied.
The latest ONS release shows that people whose main employment is a zero hours contract account for 2.3% of people in employment. This is 1 in 43 – or to a round number 1 in 40, not 1 in 50 as the Conservative Party has said.

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/zero_hour_contracts_facts-41165

they have done nothing to clamp down on multi-nationals paying no tax.

It’s hard to agree with this In the face of the evidence one of the biggest orchestrated clampdowns on closing the Irish / Dutch / Luxembourg tax loopholes (led by a team from the Treasury working with other governments).

Ed M and Ed Balls have spent the last 5 years telling us:

1. There would be a triple dip recession (in fact the recession only had one cycle)
2. There would be 5 million unemployed (it peaked at 3m and is now at a lower level than when Labour left office)
3. The private sector couldn’t create more jobs than those lost in the public sector (it’s been 4 created for every one lost, and 9 times more than Labour managed in 13 years)
4. We would suffer significant downgrades to our credit rating (we didn’t)
5. Other economies would grow faster due to the “austerity” (ours is the fastest growing).

More jobs have been created in the UK over the last 4 years than the whole of the rest of Europe put together and more new jobs in Yorkshire than the whole of the rest of France. Despite other economies struggling, ours has continued to grow.

The upside of the strong economy is that the Tories have done as they said and rightly protected NHS spending which is now the same in real terms as it was in 2010. Contrast that with Labour’s unwillingness to commit to the same thing and there’s a clear difference.

Looking forward, Labour are back to the 1970’s class rhetoric – discouraging inward investment and job creation. They are the party for those who don’t want to work and would rather our country sinks to an over-governed statist system in which the state rather than the individual is better placed to decide how the results of economic prosperity should be spent.

Finally, on character. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have shown themselves to be a pair of charlatans – neither can admit the structural deficit was too high before the banking crisis even though the OECD amongst others continues to say so. They have used pathetic “privatisation” scaremongering with the NHS even though the private sector activity at 5.8 % of spend is only 0.8% higher than under Labour. They are incompetent, dishonest and their lack of any experience outside the political bubble and juvenile fatuous approach to policy would harm our country.

Anyone who really thinks Labour’s policies are likely to result in success is very welcome to visit France, Spain, Italy or even Germany and see first hand how their countries are doing – be sure to come back and tell us what you found.

Charles Tyrwhitt do sleeves in 1″ increments as standard or custom sleeves for about £5 extra – if you order 4 standard shirts they are about £90 after cashback from TopCashback.co.uk – the quality is great as well.

http://www.ctshirts.co.uk

talktalk uses vodafone, so you’ll have a job using the “unlimited data” what with Vodafone now having the smallest network and the worst coverage on 3g out of all of the networks.

just5minutes The Scottish government has never used those tax varying powers for 2 reasons. Income tax rises are never popular

This is precisely the point – the Scots are “anti austerity” so long as someone else is paying the extra tax.

What the SNP want is to have control of all revenue in Scotland so we can pay for the services we want ourselves, and incidentally stop subsidising England.

The SNP (and Labour) are committed to higher public spending. They already have the powers to raise the tax from Scots needed to pay for this spending. So why haven’t they done it?

Claiming that the Scots are “subsidising” England in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has about as much logic to it as claiming the sun draws power from the moon.

From Channel 4 Fact Check:

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 – or 10% higher – per head of population than the UK average.
What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.
Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called “identifiable” public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.
On this basis, Scotland ‘got’ £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues – or a ‘subsidy’ of around £3,150 per head.

It’s interesting to look at how honest the SNP are.

One of their key election pledges is “anti-austerity” and they also make ludicrous claims about English NHS spending impacting on the Scottish NHS.

The NHS in Scotland is fully devolved and has been heading towards crisis for the last 4 years – the SNP say it needs more money but aside from chump change have not actually funded it.

The Scottish Parliament (controlled by the SNP) already has powers to increase tax by up to 3p via the variable levy but has never done so.

So basically the SNP are “for” additional public spending, complain about current funding (despite Scotland already receiving significantly higher captitated payments for public services than the rest of the uk), have the powers to raise tax but have never used them.

It’s difficult not to conclude therefore that the SNP want higher public spending but only paid for by England as they have the powers to make Scots pay for their own public services but haven’t used them.

the total cost of her housing, direct benefits, healthcare and educating her children is already well over £1m if the dates in the articles are correct – just the housing cost alone is £358K for a 6 year period.

With most median families making a negligible net contribution to the state we’re looking at tens of thousands of families for a whole year just to support this woman. This is a slap in the fact to all the families that work hard and get by on much less with little or no direct state support.

I bet there are electoral frauds but let’s see who got the most this time.

Labour are off to an early start and we can expect a lot more of this given it’s become a consistent problem across a number of cities over the last 2 local / national elections:

Warnings in 2012 – http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-19397157

Reality in 2015 –

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/573964/Muslim-vote-Labour-Prophet-Mohammed-descendant-endorsement

and

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/12919255.Blackburn_Labour_council_election_candidate_arrested____on_suspicion_of_electoral_fraud_and_integrity_issues___/

The food banks thing has been debunked as the Trussell Trust admitted last week that their “shock” figures of a million people being supported by food banks is actually a million visits with the average number of visits per person per year being 2. An average of 2 trips a year by people who use food banks is hardly evidence of abject poverty or starvation .

the change in behaviour on tax is well proven so for the naysayers feel free to find the information yourselves as it’s readily available:

France – increase in emigration of high net worth individuals under the current government

UK – effect of high tax rates in the 1970s and following the introduction of the 50p rate

Also as an aside, the UK currently has one of the highest marginal rates of tax on the world at 62% on personal
Income above £100k

Anyway, none of this matters unless we actually want our public services to be affordable and properly funded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/10390571/france-hollande-taxes-socialist-farrage.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/03/celebrating-the-25th-anniversary-of-nigel-lawsons-tax-cutting-budget/

http://www.economist.com/node/21530093

The simple fact is that if tax on individuals was lower then the likes of Paula and Lewis would be more minded to stay here – it’s a classic case of the uk receiving lower overall tax receipts because of punitive rates of tax on those who are in fact reasonably mobile and can choose where to live. Or shooting ourselves in the foot in everyday parlance.

Former minister in the last Labour Government; Lord Digby Jones, has made a rather explosive intervention in today’s Telegraph that strikes to the core of Ed Milliband’s understanding of how the economy works:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11559549/Open-letter-to-Ed-Miliband-Leader-of-the-Labour-party-from-Lord-Jones-of-Birmingham.html

Worth a read..

Plenty on George G in the news – just search on google for news in the last 24 hours:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4419629.ece

Tower Hamlets isn’t an isolated case – reasonably large changes in demographics in other London boroughs and religious driven voting practices mean that there’s a much wider problem of electoral misconduct that’s beneath the surface but very driving voting choices in one direction.

Forget the cycle to work but and just ask Evans for 10% off the whole price – the savings work out the same. Most LBS dealers will happily do this as well.

Mrjmt – ours is set up on a neet splitter connected to a you view box – works fine once it’s all set up, just make sure the screen resolution is set the same on both of the TVs

I tried some IR injectors from Keene electronics but both pairs had stopped working within a year. I installed these about 18 months ago and they’ve been perfect – all the kit needs to be switched on in a certain order though – TV first to provide power to the hdmi cable and injector, then the set top box. Other than that they’ve been fit and forget..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00SHTQL9A/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr1_2?qid=1429782397&sr=8-2-fkmr1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165&keywords=Cablesson++100+Cablesson+Ivuna+Flex+200mm+IR+Adapter+Cable+-+IR+over+HDMI+Remote+Control+Extender+Kit+-+CEC+Function%2C+Infra+Red%2C+Magic+Eye%2C+3D%2C+Sky+HD%2C+Virgin+Box%2C+HDCP%2C+Blu-ray%2C+HDtv%2C+DVRs%2C+1080p

So it now looks like the Grant Shapps story may have just been a cheap political smear…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11555267/Wikipedia-administrator-who-accused-Grant-Shapps-of-editing-pages-of-Tory-rivals-is-Liberal-Democrat-activist.html

It’s always interesting to hear the criticism of Conservative housing proposals by Labour, but as is always the case, it’s instructive to look what Labour run administrations actually do with the powers they have already got.

Two examples that have been in the press down in that there London recently:

Labour run council leaves 100’s of their own properties empty for up to 14 years:
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/empty-homes-hounslow-costing-taxpayers-6685035

Labour council leader with 2 full time political jobs complains about housing shortage whilst renting out his own £1m home as an HMO and himself living in social housing provided for him by a Housing Association:

http://tinyurl.com/m3hvfmw

The labour poster might as well guarantee everyone their own aladdin’s lamp with three wishes and be done with it. Running the NHS for patients not profit takers is pretty astonishing pledge when it was Labour that saddle NHS trusts with £300 B of PFI debt.

1. They don’t avoid any tax on UK income.

2. 5,000 of the 115,000 pay an annual fee instead of tax on income earned outside of the UK. These people typically own substantial businesses / investments outside of the UK.

3. If we force the 5,000 to pay full tax on their investments outside of the UK the odds are most will move to another country where they don’t need to.

4. The 5,000 pay around £8.2B in tax. If Ed Millband is right we can take away non dom status and they will all stay – it’s an unknown if the income tax on offshore investments will be greater than the amount collected through the annual charge. If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on. Clearly they can do this and that is the SOLE reason why they stay as non doms, they do not do it because it costs them tax money. To be fair I could have written it clearer but by this stage i assume we all know what we are discussing

FFS. All non doms pay full UK tax on their UK income. the 5,000 or so that also pay an additional annual charge of up to £90K a year do not pay income tax on their earnings outside the UK.

the headline figure of £30-£40Bn is the lifecycle cost over 20 years and in today’s monetary cost. The actual cost of trident replacement is around £2Bn a year – so about £48-£64 for every working taxpayer. That’s about one pint of beer a month for the guarantee the UK will always be safe from invasion.

TBH apart from those who think it will cost us money [ and some of those dont like it ] does anyone really think its fair folk can live here and not pay tax? Some of them really are taking the piss, head of HMRC for example

But that’s not what Non Dom actually means. There are c115,000 non doms of which only 5,000 have elected to pay the annual charge so that their income outside of the UK is not taxed – they still p[ay the annual charge PLUS normal income tax on income earned inside the UK.

It’s also worth mentioning that the 5,000 non noms who pay the annual charge pay the same amount of tax as the 10,000,000 lowest earners. This should caution against making stupid back of the fag packet policy decisions – for every 1 of those non doms who decides the Labour policy is enough to make them relocate we need to replace them with 2,000 new tax payers.

losing some of the £8.2Bn from non-doms is the thin end of a much bigger wedge as pretty much anyone apart from Ed Balls has likely already worked out.

If we drive some / many non-doms away, we won’t just lose the annual charge for being a non-dom, we will also lose:

– the VAT on the significant discretionary spending that oligarchs and the like do in the uk. The VAT on a single £300K car purchase pays for 20 hip replacements.

– loss of employment taxes on the many staff they employ

– the loss of stamp duty on properties they will buy – remembering that properties bought through company structures now attract 15% stamp duty and an annual charge

It’s very likely that even if 1/2 the non doms leave the UK for good the “loss” won’t be £4Bn but will actually be many times that.

tonyd – EE will be first to offer it but vodafone will start to roll it out from the summer which is a good job given their shockingly bad coverage. o2 haven’t got any plans to offer it and three are likely to make it available much later in the year. Vodafone won’t be doing much handover to voice on 4g for a long time as they are now around 18 months behind EE on their 4G rollout.

tonyd – nope, Wifi calling on EE isn’t via an app. The wifi calling is built into the firmware (iOS and Android both already support it) and just uses Wifi whenever a good connection is available – including BT wifi points without the need to authenticate / have a subscription.

The wifi calling will also handover to 4G when voice is enabled on that standard later in the year i.e. start a call at home on wifi, leave the front door and the call will be routed onto 4g without dropping. It works really well in practice as EE have spent the last 10 months working with most of the big wifi networks and home ISPs to make sure that the quality of service is ok.

It’s always worth getting a payg sim card to check the coverage in your area first but EE have the biggest, most reliable and fastest network.

This week EE have launched wifi calling which means if you are in an area with a poor / no signal you can just use wifi to make and receive calls / texts. It will work on the new Samsung and Nokia handsets, with iPhones 5c or later being activated over the next few weeks.