Профиль

Do the people raising the spectre of a ‘death tax’ think it’s just fine for the families of people requiring extended end-of-life care to bear an Inheritance Tax charge of 100%? Because that’s what the current system is.

Nice example of someone who doesn’t understand what doing politics differently looks like. I hope you’re listening to what is actually being said.

Blimey. We seem to have a PM who talks like a human, not like a SpAd-bot. He won’t last long in the job, eh? @mrjamesob.bsky.social

I suspect that Fartage is setting up an “I was hounded/out” narrative to excuse his defeat in Clacton or his second resignation.

And history is a large part of the problem. The rail system is a badly bolted together network of systems designed by different Victorian companies. Unification should have started with the infrastructure.

Yep. I understand that. But the answer is to alter and future proof the infrastructure. Not have different ‘consumables’! Bigger upfront cost, but cheaper in the long run. Or do what they did on the Overground: design the new stock to run on both hot-rail and overhead power.

There was someone from Morgan Stanley, or similar, on #r4pm today saying how they were using ‘AI’ (LLMs, presumably) a lot and there are huge increases in productivity. A pity the interviewer didn’t ask for evidence. It’s not showing up in official productivity figures. Anywhere. Is it?

The production run of trains is too small to make complete automation feasible. That said, as someone who was originally an automotive engineer, I’ve long thought it was bonkers that pretty much every new train in the UK is a new variant. Why not just have three classes: fast, stopping and commuter?

A public service for those of us who don’t use Instagram or TikTok

And this all needs to be joined up with the social care proposition, given that it is the bulk of councils’ spend. I’m not criticising any of this. It is the right thing to do. But I want it to work.

I know that! But 25% in their control is quite a lot to lose control of. My point was that devolution implies an *increase* in local control of revenue. And I don’t see how a flat rate, set by the centre, allows for that.

Yes, but what will it be, if not a property tax? I can’t see local income taxes being sellable and they’d hit the same problem - poorer areas having to charge higher marginal rates.

It is irritating to see how the main news media have fallen for this publicity stunt by Philp

As I said elsewhere…

The objective of tax is not just to raise money for public spending. Fiscal policy will include incentives (for growth, inflation, employment… etc), fairness, as well. Which is why all the “where’s the money coming from?” questions and the use of household budget analogies are so unhelpful.

You’re not wrong, but the policy is as much, if not more, about local/regional growth as it is about helping young people into work. Growth needs a (local) industrial strategy and targeted labour supply measures. Which means configuring FE to meet future skills needs.

I think the Achilles heel of the much-needed vocational plan might be finding and paying for the FE lecturers. If a plumber can earn £70k+ working for a housing developer, why would they train as a teacher only to earn half of that? And IT specialists…?!!! #r4today

Perhaps the most startling change is the pivot from managing decline to actually trying to fix the big problems. #r4today

Doesn’t shift tax from income to assets. Which is one of the objectives, isn’t it?

I like the idea at first sight, but struggling to understand how it fits in with devolution. Isn’t it fixing council income centrally (and to the disadvantage of the poorer councils who are likely to contain less valuable housing stock)? Or have I just missed something?