Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Insane_Homer]

Labour: 43.6% - a +5.9% swing
Greens: 2.9% - a +0.6% swing
Os: Greens prevented Labour winning!!

failure of the tactical vote,

they won by 495 votes,

~1400 votes went to LD (526) and Greenies (893) , way more than uber-cunts UKIP, Reclaim stole from the cunts.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

And it was Johnson who originally introduced it.

It's not even that stringent. My 2004 petrol* car passes the standard (same with the Glasgow zone). 2004.

I suspect there's lots of wailing and moaning and reading the Daily Mail without actually checking the facts, as usual.

*Diesels will be more impacted, granted, though I checked my previous car, a 2016 focus, and that was fine too. So how many people will actually be affected?

Older diesels mainly, which will presumably piss many taxi drivers off.

A 2016 diesel will be EURO 6 which is currently the most stringent of the standards, I think it came intro effect in 2014 but that is only for cars retailed from that point on - it's of course not retrospective. Most ULEZ require Euro 6. There was a significant jump (or required drop) for NOx between EURO 5 and EURO 6, from 0.18 g/KM to 0.08. (eta - just to make clear, most EURO 5 engines are not going to be OK for ULEZ just purely on target limits, although I'm not clear if EURO 6 is actually a requirement for ULEZ or just the specific car's emissions levels)

Diesels are horrifically more polluting than any modern petrol car (by that I mean anything petrol with a catalytic converter and lambda sensor, so it's barely producing any CO or NOx). By their very nature Diesels are very, very hard to get clean - there's all sorts of workarounds such as ammonia additives (adblue - and really needed to get NOX down to EURO 6 requirements), exhaust gas recirculation (Which helps with NOX but is complex), particulate traps etc, which are there to try to address the worst excesses and which older engines won't have.

Many of these problems were caused by the relentless drive to drop CO2 emissions, which diesels can help with - at the expense of just about every other horrible pollutant. Prior to the VW emissions scandal, where people started to look more closely, no-one really seemed to care. I worked at a University which had huge research funding from Ford for diesel research (amongst other things) and many of us not involved in that research area could really work out why there wasn't more pushback on diesel given it's so intrinsically polluting.

I totally understand that we need to target old diesels, I'm just not convinced there's that many people in that constituency driving a 9 year old plus diesel (anything newer than that should be exempt). I see Shaggy's estimate is 15% in his street, but it's definitely not that many in mine.

(Also, taxi drivers don't count as they are almost certainly exempt - the black cab industry has huge lobbying power.)

[_Os_]

I have no idea where you are wandering around with this but I think you need to read up on domicile , deemed & trusts a bit, as it seems you are giving UK’s power a bit too much credit re influence. A tax loophole and differential is a tax loophole and differential so unclear why somehow federal ones don’t count for you or why according to you it’s only a Uk thing.
Companies / funds / shells can and do move nominal country for tax advantages all the time , it was literally what I did in a couple of my roles in the past. Have a read about German cum-ex scandal which I’ve mentioned to bimbo & TSG on PR a couple of times , that had zero to do with Uk bar the fact that the people making the decisions were in London (although technically they were not ) and their lackeys (of which I was one ) were technically in London.

I need to read up on domicile? Are you sure?

It's obvious where I'm going. You're saying the rich cannot be taxed because they'll move their money elsewhere. I'm saying multiple offshore jurisdictions are ultimately within the power of the UK parliament to control/end. For the difference between US states and the UK system, just compare say the Cayman Island's tax regime to any US state, the other difference is Americans are aware Texas exists and is American, not really the same for the British and the BOTs. There aren't actually many places for the money to move to where it's going to be secure and hidden (it's certainly not moving to Liberia ffs), that means avoiding the US and EU system entirely and avoiding the places it came from (Russia/China/ME/etc). And if it does move, who cares, what stays will actually start paying HMRC. Or the UK can persist with two systems under one roof whilst running a structural deficit and a growing national debt, in a country of 70 millions which is never going to be a Switzerland, and see how long that lasts.

Seems you just want to blame the Uk, aka the Roketz approach . I am far from saying you cannot tax rich, but if you do try to increase it (too much) then the rich are extremely adept at moving it elsewhere , as my corporate commercial stamp duty example I wrote about earlier proved.
Glad that you admit who cares if the money moves elsewhere , and proves you seem to miss the point entirely re Fairness V actual revenue. You seem to genuinely want £1billion revenue generated from a nice fair system of companies that remain in the (however loosely) Uk controlled areas, than £2billion revenue generated under the current system. (Made up numbers not an actual ratio)
What has population size got to do with Switzerland or their tax laws and financial disclosure ? Offshore places offer services that are miles larger than what they could support domestically, and their tax neutrality means it’s the investors tax domicile that is key , not whether there is a Union Jack on its flag. Irish Qaifs are another example.

I’m not that hot on Uk parliamentary law , but I’m not sure it can easily alter any financial rules that offshore Caymen etc places set, because they are self governing.

How am I blaming the UK? I'm saying this isn't something the UK has no control over and it isn't being swept along by currents it cannot influence or control in any form.

Lets go back to your stamp duty example. As I already mentioned most of the UK property owned through offshore vehicles, in fact exist within the UK: Jersey/Isle of Man/Guernsey/British Virgin Islands. As he's already being mentioned, Tony Blair has bought commercial property in London (for his thinktank presumably) through a BVI offshore vehicle for tax optimisation.

You're all fine with that, and think it cannot and shouldn't change because the tax take would go down in your opinion.

I'm saying a lot of these territories are within the UK, they can be abolished by the UK, or the two speed system can be made considerably less extreme in the difference between them. For fixed assets like property it's a governmental choice to allow opaque ownership in UK territories, and unlimited ownership of UK property by foreign individuals and offshore companies (which are usual not foreign but UK). There is nothing which says UK laws must always mean property transaction tax doesn't always have to be paid in full. It's a choice to make it this way. It's made this way so "the property market isn't damaged", which actually means property prices would fall and become more affordable for ordinary people (tax is a method of reducing price inflation).

Of course fairness in a tax system matters. Especially when offshore options are more accessible than many realise. If it becomes understood that the tax system is manifestly unfair and the taxes are being wasted, then you get a Greece and getting anyone to pay becomes impossible. Do you think it would be desirable if every property in the UK was bought through an opaque offshore vehicle as an off the self option when buying a house? That's the logical endpoint when PMs are doing it and PMs are saying the point of the UK is to pay as little tax as possible. The size of a population matters too, it's quite easy to please a tiny population where's there's barely any politics happening. Bit more difficult convincing 70 million people an unfair tax system is cool, when taxes are going up for ordinary people and that still means a deficit and growing debt.

The Cayman Islands isn't a country, it's self governing the same way Wales and Scotland are, ie the UK parliament is supreme and can take it all away. It is part of the UK.

[shaggy]

It's not easy to unpick, but you have to start at your end goal and work backwards from there.

The end goal here is to keep or planet from being uninhabitable, that is not being over dramatic.

We have to lower carbon emissions and we don't have the time we thought we had to do so.

You are measuring decisions against your own expectations. The end goal for many pensioners is to see out their remaining years without massive restrictions. Plus, these people grew up in London when air quality was horrific and they see the air quality today as absolutely fine.

I expect many of those pensioners will have grandchildren or great grandchildren

The discussion about migration on another thread will seem minuscule when climate change migration starts to happen.

ULEZ is an air quality issue according to Khan. Climate change, although one of his areas of policy interest , is not part of the decision so it is irrelevant in the discussion of whether London ULEZ expansion is a potential challenge for Labour votes in London.

[Tichtheid]

You are measuring decisions against your own expectations. The end goal for many pensioners is to see out their remaining years without massive restrictions. Plus, these people grew up in London when air quality was horrific and they see the air quality today as absolutely fine.

I expect many of those pensioners will have grandchildren or great grandchildren

The discussion about migration on another thread will seem minuscule when climate change migration starts to happen.

ULEZ is an air quality issue according to Khan. Climate change, although one of his areas of policy interest , is not part of the decision so it is irrelevant in the discussion of whether London ULEZ expansion is a potential challenge for Labour votes in London.

Khan is a politician, he'll frame it in whichever way he feels is most likely to get the point across. It may well be that in his view the most immediate problem facing Londoners is air quality, it may be that he feels people don't respond to climate change issues as it seems too far down the road, but if you reduce NO2 and CO emissions by taking cars off the road or putting "cleaner" cars on the road, then you also reduce CO2 emissions.

[Sandstorm]

Yeah, as far as I'm aware the post-pandemic scarcity of chips (silicon, not salt and vinegar) pushed waiting times and prices up for new cars, and that in turn pushed up prices on second hand cars.

That's a small part of it.
The main driver of high car prices is PCP Car Finance. Instead of buyers (especially younger people) looking at the list price £25k, they only focus on the monthly payment eg. £292.

Buyer: "Hey, I can afford that!"
Dealer: "You know, for just an extra £17 a month you can get the deluxe model with alloys and a huge touch screen"
Buyer: "Another £17? That's peanuts. I'll do it"

The manufacturers know this and keep edging up the list price every month or so. Buyers barely notice.
Then the new model comes in and that jumps by £1.5k. And so it goes....

Another is safety features like automatic lane keeping. It's EU Law and expensive to implement in every car you make, especially the small ones.

[Tichtheid]

Yeah, as far as I'm aware the post-pandemic scarcity of chips (silicon, not salt and vinegar) pushed waiting times and prices up for new cars, and that in turn pushed up prices on second hand cars.

That's a small part of it.
The main driver of high car prices is PCP Car Finance. Instead of buyers (especially younger people) looking at the list price £25k, they only focus on the monthly payment eg. £292.

Buyer: "Hey, I can afford that!"
Dealer: "You know, for just an extra £17 a month you can get the deluxe model with alloys and a huge touch screen"
Buyer: "Another £17? That's peanuts. I'll do it"

The manufacturers know this and keep edging up the list price every month or so. Buyers barely notice.
Then the new model comes in and that jumps by £1.5k. And so it goes....

Another is safety features like automatic lane keeping. It's EU Law and expensive to implement in every car you make, especially the small ones.

When I used to drive a 109 Series 3 Land Rover from the Pyrenees to Edinburgh the automatic lane keeping relied purely on Pro Plus and Coffee.

[Sandstorm]

When I used to drive a 109 Series 3 Land Rover from the Pyrenees to Edinburgh

Christ you must have been a sucker for punishment!

[Yeeb]

I need to read up on domicile? Are you sure?

It's obvious where I'm going. You're saying the rich cannot be taxed because they'll move their money elsewhere. I'm saying multiple offshore jurisdictions are ultimately within the power of the UK parliament to control/end. For the difference between US states and the UK system, just compare say the Cayman Island's tax regime to any US state, the other difference is Americans are aware Texas exists and is American, not really the same for the British and the BOTs. There aren't actually many places for the money to move to where it's going to be secure and hidden (it's certainly not moving to Liberia ffs), that means avoiding the US and EU system entirely and avoiding the places it came from (Russia/China/ME/etc). And if it does move, who cares, what stays will actually start paying HMRC. Or the UK can persist with two systems under one roof whilst running a structural deficit and a growing national debt, in a country of 70 millions which is never going to be a Switzerland, and see how long that lasts.

Seems you just want to blame the Uk, aka the Roketz approach . I am far from saying you cannot tax rich, but if you do try to increase it (too much) then the rich are extremely adept at moving it elsewhere , as my corporate commercial stamp duty example I wrote about earlier proved.
Glad that you admit who cares if the money moves elsewhere , and proves you seem to miss the point entirely re Fairness V actual revenue. You seem to genuinely want £1billion revenue generated from a nice fair system of companies that remain in the (however loosely) Uk controlled areas, than £2billion revenue generated under the current system. (Made up numbers not an actual ratio)
What has population size got to do with Switzerland or their tax laws and financial disclosure ? Offshore places offer services that are miles larger than what they could support domestically, and their tax neutrality means it’s the investors tax domicile that is key , not whether there is a Union Jack on its flag. Irish Qaifs are another example.

I’m not that hot on Uk parliamentary law , but I’m not sure it can easily alter any financial rules that offshore Caymen etc places set, because they are self governing.

How am I blaming the UK? I'm saying this isn't something the UK has no control over and it isn't being swept along by currents it cannot influence or control in any form.

Lets go back to your stamp duty example. As I already mentioned most of the UK property owned through offshore vehicles, in fact exist within the UK: Jersey/Isle of Man/Guernsey/British Virgin Islands. As he's already being mentioned, Tony Blair has bought commercial property in London (for his thinktank presumably) through a BVI offshore vehicle for tax optimisation.

You're all fine with that, and think it cannot and shouldn't change because the tax take would go down in your opinion.

I'm saying a lot of these territories are within the UK, they can be abolished by the UK, or the two speed system can be made considerably less extreme in the difference between them. For fixed assets like property it's a governmental choice to allow opaque ownership in UK territories, and unlimited ownership of UK property by foreign individuals and offshore companies (which are usual not foreign but UK). There is nothing which says UK laws must always mean property transaction tax doesn't always have to be paid in full. It's a choice to make it this way. It's made this way so "the property market isn't damaged", which actually means property prices would fall and become more affordable for ordinary people (tax is a method of reducing price inflation).

Of course fairness in a tax system matters. Especially when offshore options are more accessible than many realise. If it becomes understood that the tax system is manifestly unfair and the taxes are being wasted, then you get a Greece and getting anyone to pay becomes impossible. Do you think it would be desirable if every property in the UK was bought through an opaque offshore vehicle as an off the self option when buying a house? That's the logical endpoint when PMs are doing it and PMs are saying the point of the UK is to pay as little tax as possible. The size of a population matters too, it's quite easy to please a tiny population where's there's barely any politics happening. Bit more difficult convincing 70 million people an unfair tax system is cool, when taxes are going up for ordinary people and that still means a deficit and growing debt.

The Cayman Islands isn't a country, it's self governing the same way Wales and Scotland are, ie the UK parliament is supreme and can take it all away. It is part of the UK.

It’s almost as if English is not your first language - go and re read where I have the example about how raising tax on commercial stamp pushed it offshore and raised much less revenue , all in the name of fairness. When it was 0.5% it wasn’t worth offshoring everything because of the extra cost of having a nominal office in timbuktu, and the funds I worked on were indeed Uk domiciled and paid Uk taxes.

To be clear, I like the government buying and paying for stuff. I want to govt to have more money to pay for stuff. Sometimes that means raising taxes, and sometimes lowering or abolishing them.

As for caymen, as I said earlier it’s the tax dom of its investors that matters, because it’s tax neutral status. You seem to want to end that tax neutral status, and be ok with all the business that would simply flow to another tax neutral market? Go and look at how Greece (for example) tends to buy and sell hotels and pay tax, it’s far from a Uk control thing only like you make out.

Like jmk I’m a bit tired now of rehashing the same words over and over if you deliberately misinterpret them so I will now bid adios to this discussion with you as you are clearly right about everything apparently

[Slick]

Hospital visits was just one extreme example. Food shopping is another example provided, very soon it mounts up.

Public transport in some outer and more rural boroughs is very sporadic, it is not a simple replacement for the car that many think it can be.

I live in a borough where it is not too bad but every journey is more than doubled by using public transport.

Don’t underestimate how impactful ULEZ is outside of the N/S Circulars.

You can get supermarket delivery slots for around a fiver - the cots of a car sitting unused, before you put petrol in it is around (I'm using Gov data and low estimates) £500 for insurance, MOT and service £300, Annual Parking Permit (Tower Hamlets was the first google) £115, RAC (low ball figure) £100, Fuel costs are dependent on use obviously, to some extent depreciation is too, but I'll ignore those for the time being.

It's around £90 per month before fuel and depreciation to have the car just sit there outside your house, low estimate.

Probably worth bearing in minds those are sunk costs - ie.e. someone has weighed up their situation and circumstance and opted for a car, which means using the car instead of using other services.

I mention this as this whole balance is disrupted if they find they can no longer use the car as intended - at which point it's further worth considering they may have chosen where to live based upon the decision to drive (ie. many of the poor sods who can't afford to live anywhere on good transport links, which distort rents and house prices). It's not so easy to unpick.

Not sure I agree with that. The issue is that in our society there isn't any weighing up, people just assume a car is needed. Perhaps if there was more information and less focus on cars then more decisions would be the other way.

A lot of people need cars, no doubt, but a lot of people also don't and would be wealthier without them but our society makes it very difficult to see the wood from the trees on this.

[_Os_]

It’s almost as if English is not your first language - go and re read where I have the example about how raising tax on commercial stamp pushed it offshore and raised much less revenue , all in the name of fairness. When it was 0.5% it wasn’t worth offshoring everything because of the extra cost of having a nominal office in timbuktu, and the funds I worked on were indeed Uk domiciled and paid Uk taxes.

To be clear, I like the government buying and paying for stuff. I want to govt to have more money to pay for stuff. Sometimes that means raising taxes, and sometimes lowering or abolishing them.

As for caymen, as I said earlier it’s the tax dom of its investors that matters, because it’s tax neutral status. You seem to want to end that tax neutral status, and be ok with all the business that would simply flow to another tax neutral market? Go and look at how Greece (for example) tends to buy and sell hotels and pay tax, it’s far from a Uk control thing only like you make out.

Like jmk I’m a bit tired now of rehashing the same words over and over if you deliberately misinterpret them so I will now bid adios to this discussion with you as you are clearly right about everything apparently

Bricks and mortar property is a fixed asset, it's not hard to track with today's technology, it's not going anywhere and physically exists. it is a choice to allow ownership through offshore companies, a choice to allow ownership of those companies to be opaque when they're inside the UK. The UK decides what is legal and illegal in the UK.

Your example just shows when the UK tries to raise a property tax it cannot, because of the choices it has made. It's not anything natural that has to happen at all.

The logic of the choices the UK keeps making, is that those tax optimisation practices become more widespread over time, and not just the preserve of the ultra wealthy.

I don't think I'm always right, I just disagree with you on this. You're looking at the system as it is now and saying it has to be like this, I'm saying no it doesn't.

You're the one telling me to read about domicile etc (when one of your early posts referred to "over shoring" something that doesn't exist), and you're the one telling me to read about the UK property something presumably you think I know fuck all about. Unlike you, I haven't been condescending at all.

[inactionman]

You can get supermarket delivery slots for around a fiver - the cots of a car sitting unused, before you put petrol in it is around (I'm using Gov data and low estimates) £500 for insurance, MOT and service £300, Annual Parking Permit (Tower Hamlets was the first google) £115, RAC (low ball figure) £100, Fuel costs are dependent on use obviously, to some extent depreciation is too, but I'll ignore those for the time being.

It's around £90 per month before fuel and depreciation to have the car just sit there outside your house, low estimate.

Probably worth bearing in minds those are sunk costs - ie.e. someone has weighed up their situation and circumstance and opted for a car, which means using the car instead of using other services.

I mention this as this whole balance is disrupted if they find they can no longer use the car as intended - at which point it's further worth considering they may have chosen where to live based upon the decision to drive (ie. many of the poor sods who can't afford to live anywhere on good transport links, which distort rents and house prices). It's not so easy to unpick.

Not sure I agree with that. The issue is that in our society there isn't any weighing up, people just assume a car is needed. Perhaps if there was more information and less focus on cars then more decisions would be the other way.

A lot of people need cars, no doubt, but a lot of people also don't and would be wealthier without them but our society makes it very difficult to see the wood from the trees on this.

I'm not entirely sure what information you're referring to - assume you mean about public transport, car clubs etc for people who have those facilities to hand? If so, I agree entirely.

The issue still exists that many places are not well served transport-wise, or infrastructure-wise, and I'm worried we're making the situation worse - with out-of-town shopping and large housing estates with little local infrastructure and with poor public transport connection. I've had a look around some of the new estates popping up in south Edinburgh, and there's no real infrastructure beyond a Co-Op local and the bus services are less than stellar (although, in their defence, you'd expect that to perhaps be in plans for extension once the estates are finished). I'd not really fancy living in some of these places without my own transport - to be fair, I'd not really fancy living there at all, but that's just me.



If

[JM2K6]

Labour: 43.6% - a +5.9% swing
Greens: 2.9% - a +0.6% swing
Os: Greens prevented Labour winning!!

failure of the tactical vote,

they won by 495 votes,

~1400 votes went to LD (526) and Greenies (893) , way more than uber-cunts UKIP, Reclaim stole from the cunts.

Again, don't assume that Green votes are otherwise Labour voters. Even the BBC is carrying quotes from voters who went from Tory to Green in protest at how they've been treated by the Tory candidate.

Anyway

[_Os_]

Tories: weaponised ULEZ and hailed it as the reason for the narrow win
Labour: claimed ULEZ was weaponised
Voters/residents on call-ins: pointing the finger at ULEZ
Os: it's because Starmer had a chat with Blair the other day


Labour: 43.6% - a +5.9% swing
Greens: 2.9% - a +0.6% swing
Os: Greens prevented Labour winning!!

I caught my fishy.

Compare the Lib Dem voter movement to the Greens (non) voter movement. Same in all three. A chat and laugh with Blair is not a good move if Labour wants to shift those Greens. Which they don't need to now, but lets wait and see once Labour have been in charge of the dumpster fire for awhile.

The Greens are an irrelevance in Uxbridge. And don't make the mistake of assuming a Green vote would normally be a Labour vote - plenty of more moderate Tories see them as an acceptable single issue protest vote without having to vote for the enemy. Obviously the loons go for Reclaim, who were 2.3% compared to 2.6% for the greens, to show how irrelevant both of them were in this battle.

But honestly though, you're barking if you think Starmer talking to Blair has had any cut through at all. It's not news, only the terminally online and tragically political types are even aware it happened, and those who would be so enraged by it are already actively anti Labour on the left and the right.

Missed this post, was expecting a lot more fire looking for it after Yeeb's "like jmk" remark. Feel disappointed.

Nothing to disagree with there too much. I do think how sticky the Green vote is, is significant though and overlooked. There's not many reasons to vote for them, but their vote refuses to go down. In the past you could look at polling in any election and fold most of their vote into the Labour vote and be about right, it's not working like that now (similar in the locals too). I'm not as convinced by the Lib Dems long term positioning as some seem to be, campaigning on "get the Tories out" works until the Tories are out (I called that they would start eating the Tory vote back in 2019, on this thread I said the 2021 Chesham and Amersham by-election wasn't a HS2 issue and would be repeated to the disagreement of some living there ... but I still think the Lib Dems aren't doing enough). Can easily see a lot of people being disillusioned with the Tories and Labour through the 2020s, the Greens and Lib Dems are competing for anyone in that group who doesn't go far right.

[Yeeb]

By the way, over shoring was probably a typo for offshoring Mr consendy-pants - but I now couldn’t give a fuck reading back to check . Chalk that as another win for you for people no longer bothering to try and engage with you

[_Os_]

By the way, over shoring was probably a typo for offshoring Mr consendy-pants - but I now couldn’t give a fuck reading back to check . Chalk that as another win for you for people no longer bothering to try and engage with you

I only mentioned when you started throwing the accusations my way, like your reading list demands I was happy to let it slide.

Don't worry, I'm sure your offshore company owned renters are safe from my punitive legal and tax regime.

[Paddington Bear]

To dip into a couple of these:

It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

Re: cars. I live reasonably close to Uxbridge and very close to the border of the expanded ULEZ zone. I posted in another thread before, but when I sold my last car 18 months ago I just didn’t buy another one. Living where I do I’m fortunate to have good train, tube and bus links which makes this viable albeit it can be quite frustrating at times. For most people this isn’t a realistic option, and once you have a car you have a massive sunk cost that encourages you to use that car, as well as getting less patient with the trade offs on timing/personal space that public transport provides. Basically not having a car is viable because I’m able bodied and without dependents, and willing to be patient. It saves me a lot of money but limits my ability to be spontaneous, get to certain places and means I need deliveries. It isn’t going to catch on rapidly.

ULEZ anger is very very real and is pretty clearly why Uxbridge has stayed Tory against a massive national swing. Outer London life remains heavily car dominated and Khan will make himself very unpopular by pushing on. The question is whether it is worth the political blow back or not.

[_Os_]

It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

As you know the UK has no codified/written constitution, in the end power doesn't reside in the courts it is in Westminster.

In the international system they're all part of the UK, are there any international bodies that they're part of outside the UK? It's a conceit they're something separate which exists within the UK alone (as far as I know).

As you also know, part of a country cannot just declare independence. It would need the consent of Westminster to actually work, or be forced on Westminster (which amounts to the consent of Westminster) by a foreign power that supported it. If they did become independent, they would quickly find being a tiny jurisdiction would mean they were far less able to resist regulations in larger foreign jurisdictions (they wouldn't want to be black listed, which would make moving the cash from there much harder). This happened to Seychelles. Going for independence if UK laws changed, would also be risky for them.

UK laws will never change, because no one in power wants them to. It would need a total outsider getting in. But that wasn't my point, the point was the UK is making a choice not to tax them in various ways.

[tabascoboy]

And finally...! Any bets on the outcome being that the "material" is too sensitive to hand to the inquiry?

Tech experts retrieve Boris Johnson's pandemic WhatsApps from old phone
A spokesman for the former prime minister says he will now hand over the unredacted messages to the COVID inquiry.

However, a "security check of this material" was now required by the government, so "the timing of any further progress on delivery to the inquiry is therefore under the Cabinet Office's control".

https://news.sky.com/story/tech-experts ... e-12925023

[Paddington Bear]

It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

As you know the UK has no codified/written constitution, in the end power doesn't reside in the courts it is in Westminster.

In the international system they're all part of the UK, are there any international bodies that they're part of outside the UK? It's a conceit they're something separate which exists within the UK alone (as far as I know).

As you also know, part of a country cannot just declare independence. It would need the consent of Westminster to actually work, or be forced on Westminster (which amounts to the consent of Westminster) by a foreign power that supported it. If they did become independent, they would quickly find being a tiny jurisdiction would mean they were far less able to resist regulations in larger foreign jurisdictions (they wouldn't want to be black listed, which would make moving the cash from there much harder). This happened to Seychelles. Going for independence if UK laws changed, would also be risky for them.

UK laws will never change, because no one in power wants them to. It would need a total outsider getting in. But that wasn't my point, the point was the UK is making a choice not to tax them in various ways.

I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

Blacklisting is an interesting one. If you legislate to end say the Caymans’ ability to have a functioning economy, what is the practical difference between that and being blacklisted? May as well roll the dice.

[_Os_]

I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

I'll look into it. I went to a talk by Nicholas Shaxson years ago, he's one of those guys that writes books all on the same subject. Vaguely remember something about a Jersey senator who tried to whistle blow (on a non-financial issue) and suddenly found himself under siege from the police, prosecuted and imprisoned (?). He just saw it all as a rort, made Jersey sound quite terrifying.

[Paddington Bear]

I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

I'll look into it. I went to a talk by Nicholas Shaxson years ago, he's one of those guys that writes books all on the same subject. Vaguely remember something about a Jersey senator who tried to whistle blow (on a non-financial issue) and suddenly found himself under siege from the police, prosecuted and imprisoned (?). He just saw it all as a rort, made Jersey sound quite terrifying.

Yes I think if you rock the boat there it can be very scary. You’ve got an entire system of government and power on an island of 110,000 people, where most of the people with power went to the same school (which has a powerful old boys network), know each other personally, their parents knew each other, and often relations between these families are still influenced by how their forebears acted during the German occupation.
This is all before you consider their economy is almost totally reliant on offshore finance, so the whistleblowers found themselves in a very cold house and for the most part left the island I believe. Same is true in Guernsey, and with half the population I imagine it’s even more claustrophobic.

As a counter, most of what goes on there is pretty mundane stuff, managing pensions, corporate offices etc, and they’ve created a reputation for themselves (justifiably) as the most reliable offshore jurisdictions. They’d be better off being well shot of the dodgier stuff, but an Old Victorian is likely making tonnes of cash off of it, and there’s a culture of ‘no such thing as good publicity’ for the island as a whole.

[Hal Jordan]

I see Sir Tory Lite has taken the first opportunity to pur the boot into Khan and the ULEZ.

The environment is completely fucked even if Labour do get in, he's so terrified of offending the the Daily Mail that they'll stomp wholesale on anything "green" rather than taking some hard decisions that would pay off in the long term.

And what's stupid is there is an absolute ton of money to be made out of green industry and tech, it just needs some fucking balls and leadership.

But we're in for serious greenlash when the populist twats scream blue murder about anything sustainable, and because they appeal to our caveman brains it's easy to nod in agreement rather than face unpleasant facts.

[Sandstorm]

I see Sir Tory Lite has taken the first opportunity to pur the boot into Khan and the ULEZ.

The environment is completely fucked even if Labour do get in, he's so terrified of offending the the Daily Mail that they'll stomp wholesale on anything "green" rather than taking some hard decisions that would pay off in the long term.

And what's stupid is there is an absolute ton of money to be made out of green industry and tech, it just needs some fucking balls and leadership.

But we're in for serious greenlash when the populist twats scream blue murder about anything sustainable, and because they appeal to our caveman brains it's easy to nod in agreement rather than face unpleasant facts.

You can’t put up wind turbines in villages of mostly deaf and short-sighted Tory voters because they’re noisy and spoil the view.

[Hal Jordan]

Cameron was one of the worst PMs in terms of long term damage we've ever had. His legacy is Brexit and a complete squandering of any lead we might have had in onshore wind generation. Someone burn down his writing caravan.

[Jockaline]

In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

Scared me too, until I found out my old car will be apparently compliant when it comes in in Edinburgh. It would be better to allow for a number of free journeys, say every six months, to allow for occasional journeys in my opinion. That way people wouldn't think they been completely barred. If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

[C69]

So shit loads more of Tory MPs are not running at the next election and are touring for jobs.
The concentration on Uxbridge is utterly pathetic.
Labour even increased their share of the vote there.
I've seen 2 Tory Ministers on TV today. One saying that there was no panic as no Tories switched to other Parties they just stayed at home and one saying the Tories need to take notice of the swathes of people who voted for other Parties.
The right are suggesting to focus on immigration and trans rights.

Uxbridge Labour Party members are now resigning over Keir's tacit criticism of Khan's green policies.

Pictures of Rishi grinning and smiling in Uxbridge are hilarious.
This London bubble is hilarious

[Hal Jordan]

So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

[GogLais]

Re ULEZ and the climate change side of it - there has to be seen to be equity in this. If I were affected I’d think why I am being hit by this when other people can do tens of thousands of miles a year without being so affected?
I’d also wonder whether I was doing £12.50 worth of damage a day. I realise that’s a hard one to answer.

[GogLais]

In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

[JM2K6]

So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

Raynor on TV last night was a shitshow too, completely incapable of stating what Labour would do differently.

The whole thing is ridiculous: Labour didn't win a seat they've not had since 1966 but still took a chunk out of the Tories. The Tories won it by successfully weaponising a policy that is ultimately theirs. It would be a piece of piss to defend Khan, defend the concept of ULEZ, while still hammering the Tories for enforcing changes without considering the financial cost on people who simply can't afford it.

So instead of swaying in the wind and mumbling some bullshit about "reflecting on ULEZ" and pointing fingers at Khan, Labour could crow about how much the Tories have lost and how disingenuous they are, etc, etc. But instead we get supine terrified-of-failure nonsense.

[Jockaline]

In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the CO2/global warning aspect of the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's life for a a bit longer, but prevention steps to extend life ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

[GogLais]

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's live for a a bit longer, but prevention steps ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

Yes, I’m doing what I shouldn’t be doing, conflating the two. Which in fairness to me politicians may be doing as well.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

The answer to that is nearly always having a new one made but there are local air quality issues that are relevant in cities.

[I like neeps]

So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

Raynor on TV last night was a shitshow too, completely incapable of stating what Labour would do differently.

The whole thing is ridiculous: Labour didn't win a seat they've not had since 1966 but still took a chunk out of the Tories. The Tories won it by successfully weaponising a policy that is ultimately theirs. It would be a piece of piss to defend Khan, defend the concept of ULEZ, while still hammering the Tories for enforcing changes without considering the financial cost on people who simply can't afford it.

So instead of swaying in the wind and mumbling some bullshit about "reflecting on ULEZ" and pointing fingers at Khan, Labour could crow about how much the Tories have lost and how disingenuous they are, etc, etc. But instead we get supine terrified-of-failure nonsense.

This is what happens when you do policy by focus group instead of policy by principle /national mission. You end up with incoherent policy positions based on what the last focus group said.

It's also why his green policies are destined to fail. He won't accept the unpopularity required to reform planning in such a way as is needed to build renewable generation. And every other policy he has or will have.

[petej]

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the CO2/global warning aspect of the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's life for a a bit longer, but prevention steps to extend life ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

Indeed. Like not being able to tell people to use their cars less and use active transport (walk/cycle) no we prefer to say use electric cars. The positive from exercise from a health side is huge (ignoring the environmental aspect). The massive amount spent on diabetes treatment when calorie counting and our labelling is massively misleading and increasingly obsolete but the alternative involves challenging food manufacturers and upsetting people who calorie count.

[Uncle fester]

Disappointing to see how little backbone Starmer has.

[JM2K6]

Disappointing to see how little backbone Starmer has.

I think the opposite to be fair. He is desperate to not spook the horses and this by-election proves him right. Any little thing will have middle England and the Red Wall Debbie's and Dwayne's running into the bosom of the party of Edwina Currie

So spooked that the Tories came closer to losing than for the last 60 years or whatever

[JM2K6]

I think the opposite to be fair. He is desperate to not spook the horses and this by-election proves him right. Any little thing will have middle England and the Red Wall Debbie's and Dwayne's running into the bosom of the party of Edwina Currie

So spooked that the Tories came closer to losing than for the last 60 years or whatever

I'm agreeing with you

No. This by election doesn't prove him right.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I think it shows Starmer still has little feel as a politician. He understands now one cannot simply list some facts/truths, and actually that flummoxed him for quite a while, but he's not exactly Blair like in responding to a situation, understanding the feel of a moment and understanding how to present one's case.

Whether one thinks that a good, bad or inconsequential thing might vary according to both person and circumstance.