I joined CL in 2009 (well the Clique invited me to join, I had put them off for years) and read most of the 2010 election thread with interest but barely commented and found the bias to the right At that election I voted Lib Dem. I think one of the staunchest Tories then was @sadiejane1981 who has now moved over to Labour. You could sense that people were moving from all areas slightly to the right.
Shamefully, yes
I was asked by someone in my family why the big U-turn? Well I wouldn't call it a U-turn I'd call it growing up, getting educated and experiencing life. I was bought up Conservative and was very lucky that I never wanted for anything, however life experience and living among real people in the real world and seeing real life struggles can really change someone's perspective. Also needless to say having children with special needs and seeing their services cut and/or abolished all over the place by Tories that feel these children should just use the mainstream services available to them also played a part.
No need for shame - you only have Charlton Athletic to support no matter what, not a political party!
Figures released yesterday showed the Tories have massively outgunned Labour in big money donations since the start of the general election campaign.
Mrs May’s party have been handed £6.5m in donations since the beginning of May, compared with £3.36m for the opposition, who draw the vast majority of their funds from trade unions.
The Electoral Commission data showed the Tories took in £3.7m from big donors in the third week of May alone, including £1m from theatre producer John Gore.
A Conservative spokesman told PoliticsHome: “All donations to the Conservative Party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”.....
Back in 2007, when Mrs May was shadow Leader of the Commons, she told MPs that "in order to restore public trust, we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors, regardless of whether they are individuals, businesses or trade unions”.
The trade union relationship with labour is the one thing I don't like about the party
The relationship with the Trades Unions is the foundation of Labour's existence and history. All very transparent funding, NEC representation and a key voice in electing the leader of the party that represent the labour movement and the rights and protection of workers who make up the vast majority of the population. Compare that with where the tories have got their £6.5m - all vested interest in personal gain from the very top (I use the word advisedly) of the food chain.
Our Prime Minister was not elected to the post, the other person withdrew.
Those arguing about deterrents should consider as mentioned previously the plight of Ukraine who gave up their weapons to their neighbour - that same neighbour might just have thought twice before invading and occupying Ukraines strategic southern port, if that had not been the case. The same would apply to emerging nuclear states like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, who might think twice about slinging a nuke at us.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I heard a bloke on the wireless a week or two ago who said that the polls at the start of a campaign are very much what people eventually vote at the end. This campaign has been interesting, but has it made many people change? Somehow i doubt it.
So 70+ years ago the USA nuked an entire Japanese city. I guess technology has moved on and a bomb could take out 200 sm or 75 % of our entire country or more. Or a smigeon of Russia, Iran or Pakistan or India. So where is the protction of our deterrent? Why would those countries attack us? Why spend £100bn on a devise to kill millions rather than a fraction on NHS to save lives? Our security is treatened not by nukes but Saudi based Islam extremistists, but we continue to trade with the sponsors of Daesh terrorism. We sell them weapons which indiscriminatey murder Yemeni children , stone rape victims to death in public and kill our troops. Support Tories, support more of this. Under May this will continue, under Corbyn unlikely.
We should not be surprised that old soldiers who survived WW2 and somehow won (thank you USA) are perturbed by the nuke issue. They recall we were very unprepared for war in the 1930's and will probably always think having a nuclear arsenal will protect the UK. It is a very old fashioned viewpoint that will always be churned out by the scaremongering right wing press. We all know that Corbyn would never press the nuke button but his hands are tied by Labour party policy which currently states they support Trident. Thus he has to fudge the issue as best he can. Yesterday he did mention cyber attacks, which are a very real danger to us all but almost invisible, so Trident is pretty much useless as a deterrent.
I keep seeing this, the oldest surviving solders from WW2 are in their 90s now, they're not the ones bringing up the nuke issue, and if even the over 90s were massively concerned about it, I doubt either party would care too much, they represent less than 0.5% of the population.
The people whinging about nukes are in the 40-70 bracket, the only war they've ever seen was the Falklands, and from the questions on QT and some of the comments on here, none of them seem to understand what Mutually Assured Destruction means.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Thanks for responding. I absolutely don't think your view is insane. (If I did, I wouldn't bother replying). And you don't know what my view is.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Thanks for responding. I absolutely don't think your view is insane. (If I did, I wouldn't bother replying). And you don't know what my view is.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Thanks for responding. I absolutely don't think your view is insane. (If I did, I wouldn't bother replying). And you don't know what my view is.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
Limit the number of attacks?
So, when the UK is razed to a post-nuclear, desolate, empty wasteland, there will be fewer bombs dropped on London? That's a minuscule consolation.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Thanks for responding. I absolutely don't think your view is insane. (If I did, I wouldn't bother replying). And you don't know what my view is.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
Limit the number of attacks?
So, when the UK is razed to a post-nuclear, desolate, empty wasteland, there will be fewer bombs dropped on London? That's a minuscule consolation.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. The quicker you respond the more likely you are to limit the number of missiles that will be launched against us.
Ooh ooh got an actual question about nukes. The older people in the audience seemed a lot more worried that the younger ones
My dad was telling me about the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe people at the time remembered the second world war, the nuclear arms race and then the situation in Cuba which was probably very frightening. How likely was a nuclear war then, and how likely were the UK to really - really - be a target? How scary was it at the time? Be interested in hearing from those who remember it
I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union in those days was very very tiny. I think the likelyhood of a nuclear attack from Russia today is zero.
I think if you predicted in the sixties that in the not too distant future that followers of a medieval religion born and bred in Europe would be murdering dozens and dozens of innocent civilians in cities across Europe each year simply because those civilians were non-believers you would have been considered a complete nut case. No one can guarantee, no matter how outrageous, certain things won't happen in the future.
All Corbin needed to say last night was that if he were elected PM he would never sanction a first use but if all diplomatic efforts have failed and an enemy launches a nuclear attack against the UK he would not hesitate to respond with the UK's nuclear deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee to the UK people and all future potential enemies of the UK what is the point of that deterrent. If he cannot give that guarantee because of his personal beliefs he should be honest and say so and not insult the intelligence of the electorate.
Hi @Red_in_SE8 - I think you're choosing a strange definition of "deterrent". What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances? To be clear, in your scenario, an "enemy" has launch nuclear weapons against the UK (for what purpose, you haven't made clear) and therefore the deterrent has failed.
Either the enemy is betting that we will not respond (because they have seen something that leads them to conclude that the UK's resolve to use the deterrent is not 100%) or they have decided to launch a planet suicide mission in the name of their God.
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Thanks for responding. I absolutely don't think your view is insane. (If I did, I wouldn't bother replying). And you don't know what my view is.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
Limit the number of attacks?
So, when the UK is razed to a post-nuclear, desolate, empty wasteland, there will be fewer bombs dropped on London? That's a minuscule consolation.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. The quicker you respond the more likely you are to limit the number of missiles that will be launched against us.
I'd suggest that there's zero advantage in launching a retaliatory nuclear strike. It wouldn't prevent deaths.
The Labour general election manifesto talks of a land value tax.
“We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.” (p86)
But what is a land value tax? How would it work? And who would pay it?
What is a land value tax
It would do what it says: impose an annual tax on land based on its market value.
So for residential property, home owners would pay a tax based on the market value of the house (since this would generally reflect the value of the underlying land). This would replace the council tax.
Meanwhile, firms would pay an annual tax based on the value of the business premises, including the land. This would replace business rates.
Wouldn’t it be a bureaucratic nightmare to value all the land in the country every year?
Not really. Business properties are already valued regularly (although not as frequently as they ought to be) by the Valuation Office Agency to determine business rate liabilities.
There is no reason why this could not be tweaked to cover business land values and also why the same could not be done by the VOA for residential properties. A wealth of online data from estate agents should make it easier for assessors to get it right.
How is this different from council tax?
Council tax is a regressive tax system which (for historic political reasons) means that those with lower value properties pay a larger share of the value of their property in tax each year than those in higher value properties.
Presuming a new tax were levied as a flat percentage of the value of the land, then those with property in the most expensive areas (or the largest amounts of land) would pay more because the market value of their asset would be higher.
Would this mean landlords would have to pay the tax, rather than residential renters?
It might if the levy was designed in that way. But one would expect landlords to fully factor the tax into rents, meaning that renters would not really be any better off in the end.
And business tenants?
As with a residential land tax, if the landlord was liable to pay it, business tenants could expect to see their rents rise commensurately.
There would also be an important difference from the existing business rates system: a land value tax would be based on the full value of the commercial land, not just the buildings.
What do economists say about the tax?
It has a lot of support. Taxing land is seen as practical and non-distortionary because land is an immobile asset. A wealthy person can’t move his or her land offshore to avoid the tax inspectors in the way that they can with stocks and shares.
It is also seen as efficient because it encourages landowners to use the land as productively as possible. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is pushing for business rates (on property) to be replaced with a full land value tax since this should encourage landowners to develop their land.
Land value taxes are also widely seen as fair, since urban land and residential property market values usually rise due to improvements in local infrastructure, which are paid for by all taxpayers. Under a land value tax, some of this uplift in wealth flows to the local community rather than accruing entirely to the lucky landlord.
Where does the idea come from?
It is commonly associated with the 19th century American economist Henry George, who recommended that taxes on land should replace all other taxes.
In Britain the Liberal government in the early 20th century came close to establishing a form of land value tax. Winston Churchill (who was then a Liberal) made a famous speech in Parliament in favour of a land value tax in 1909 in which he stressed the socially equitable nature of the levy:
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.”
Comments
Con 40 (-6%)
Lab 39 (+5%)
LD 8%
UKIP 5 %
Others 9%
Apparently a few other interesting polls are coming out tonight too, like:
COMRES/INDEPENDENT/SUNDAY MIRROR:
Tories - 47%
Labour - 35%
It is complete madness to spend all that money on Trident if we give future potential enemies any reason to think that we are not 100% committed to using it in the event of an attack.
Additionally, I would hope that our weapons are more destructive and more accurate than our enemies and therefore we win the post nuclear conflict.
I know you think my view is completely insane but equally I think your view is insane on this issue. I would not expect either of us to be persuaded by the other's argument. It is an argument that has been going on for 60 odd years. But at the moment we spend a lot of money on Trident which is completely wasted if we send the slightest signal that we might not use it.
It is an issue that I think the Uk needs to resolve one way or the other. I think it is an issue that is much more suited to deciding by a referendum.
Post nuclear conflict - that's the one fought with bows and arrows isn't it?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/12/lets-have-referendum-on-renewal-trident-nuclear-weapons-system
Survation (1pt Tory lead)
YouGov (4pts)
Opinium (6pts)
ORB (9pts)
ICM (11pts)
ComRes (12pts)
So a big range of values there.
The polls are all over the place anyway, all you can do is vote for whatever party/candidate you believe in and hope for the best.
The people whinging about nukes are in the 40-70 bracket, the only war they've ever seen was the Falklands, and from the questions on QT and some of the comments on here, none of them seem to understand what Mutually Assured Destruction means.
Try going through Theresa May's twitter posts and take a drink every time she mentions Brexit.
But, back to the question: can you answer it? What good do you think responding with the UK's nuclear deterrent would be in those circumstances?
The Labour general election manifesto talks of a land value tax.
“We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.” (p86)
But what is a land value tax? How would it work? And who would pay it?
What is a land value tax
It would do what it says: impose an annual tax on land based on its market value.
So for residential property, home owners would pay a tax based on the market value of the house (since this would generally reflect the value of the underlying land). This would replace the council tax.
Meanwhile, firms would pay an annual tax based on the value of the business premises, including the land. This would replace business rates.
Wouldn’t it be a bureaucratic nightmare to value all the land in the country every year?
Not really. Business properties are already valued regularly (although not as frequently as they ought to be) by the Valuation Office Agency to determine business rate liabilities.
There is no reason why this could not be tweaked to cover business land values and also why the same could not be done by the VOA for residential properties. A wealth of online data from estate agents should make it easier for assessors to get it right.
How is this different from council tax?
Council tax is a regressive tax system which (for historic political reasons) means that those with lower value properties pay a larger share of the value of their property in tax each year than those in higher value properties.
Presuming a new tax were levied as a flat percentage of the value of the land, then those with property in the most expensive areas (or the largest amounts of land) would pay more because the market value of their asset would be higher.
Would this mean landlords would have to pay the tax, rather than residential renters?
It might if the levy was designed in that way. But one would expect landlords to fully factor the tax into rents, meaning that renters would not really be any better off in the end.
And business tenants?
As with a residential land tax, if the landlord was liable to pay it, business tenants could expect to see their rents rise commensurately.
There would also be an important difference from the existing business rates system: a land value tax would be based on the full value of the commercial land, not just the buildings.
What do economists say about the tax?
It has a lot of support. Taxing land is seen as practical and non-distortionary because land is an immobile asset. A wealthy person can’t move his or her land offshore to avoid the tax inspectors in the way that they can with stocks and shares.
It is also seen as efficient because it encourages landowners to use the land as productively as possible. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is pushing for business rates (on property) to be replaced with a full land value tax since this should encourage landowners to develop their land.
Land value taxes are also widely seen as fair, since urban land and residential property market values usually rise due to improvements in local infrastructure, which are paid for by all taxpayers. Under a land value tax, some of this uplift in wealth flows to the local community rather than accruing entirely to the lucky landlord.
Where does the idea come from?
It is commonly associated with the 19th century American economist Henry George, who recommended that taxes on land should replace all other taxes.
In Britain the Liberal government in the early 20th century came close to establishing a form of land value tax. Winston Churchill (who was then a Liberal) made a famous speech in Parliament in favour of a land value tax in 1909 in which he stressed the socially equitable nature of the levy:
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.”