From The Dail Mail, via MSN:
Minister calls petrol crisis a lesson in abandoning fossil fuels
I initially thought that somebody had seen sense and admitted that the petrol crisis is a good lesson in the futility and nigh-impossibility of abandoning fossil fuels, but I was sorely disappointed:
Environment minister Zac Goldsmith has said the ongoing petrol crisis is a 'good lesson' in the need for the dependence on fossil fuels to end.
But hopefully I haven't misunderstood the second headline, hinting that IDS actually cares about welfare recipients::
Ex-Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith launches a last ditch attempt to save £20-a-week Universal Credit uplift as he urges Boris Johnson to keep the extra cash in place over the winter.
Go IDS! If they want to cut the welfare bill, the first priority must be to phase out Housing Benefit for private tenants.
Sunday, 3 October 2021
I misunderstood the first headline
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
12:56
3
comments
Labels: Iain Duncan Smith, Petrol, Welfare, Zac Goldsmith
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
A Goldsmith fashions his own demise
Well, he said he would if Heathrow went ahead, and he has gone and done it. I hope you don't mind if I sit back and enjoy it from my seat in the grim, North. I would have voted for expansion for Blackpool or John Lennon myself. Plenty of capacity and anything is better than the planned fracking.
The one fact we can assume from the situation though, is that Tory HQ in London has had plenty of time to consider what to do if Prime Minister May chose tarmac over the sexy, old Etonian.
Many of you here, no doubt, had already guessed they would shoot Zac's fox by not standing against him. Just a little disagreement amongst the sixth form boarders, nothing to get the whole school worried, don't you know. United front. With, 'Neat solution old chap' echoing down the quad.
But what a chance for the Labour Party, up the ante, and also not stand a candidate? Interesting. Take some faux, outraged, moral high ground and bring it straight back to pure 'Blue on Blue' fire. (Always assuming the electorally challenged, Lib Dems, play with a straight bat). Now, even a very average cavalry commander, in battle, seeing utter disorder in the enemy ranks would simply turn his horses around and charge straight through the gap.
But Labour's top brass in Parliament, is cursed by senior commanders who have long records of persistent, misjudged, half-hearted, confused failure when fantastic opportunties present themselves.
So take the wisdom of serial offender, Staff Officer, Tom Watson here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/26/labour-frontbenchers-urge-party-not-to-contest-richmond-park-byelection
In short, faced with heaping pain on the enemy, all Watson can contribute is the lazy idea, that Labour is a 'national party' and focus on the old internal issue of always fielding a candidate no matter what.
So the question is, how many here agree or disagree with Jabber the Hut above: Labour is still a 'National Party' and we can show this ideal in any way we like, except by winning a general election?
Posted by
MikeW
at
17:20
13
comments
Labels: Elections, Heathrow, tom watson, Zac Goldsmith
Thursday, 31 March 2016
Pity the poor landowners.
From The Guardian:
Zac Goldsmith has promised to keep spending on London’s rail and roads while pushing up fares if elected mayor, in a transport manifesto that attempted to paint a choice between Labour’s “experiment” in freezing fares, or delivering new infrastructure.
Launching the manifesto in Ilford on Wednesday morning, the Conservative candidate pledged to “get London building” by pushing ahead with projects including further tube upgrades, Crossrail 2 and a southern extension to the London Overground, which he claimed could be jeopardised by Labour hopeful Sadiq Khan’s proposed fare freeze. Goldsmith said that keeping fares at current levels would create a £1.9bn black hole* in the capital’s investment plans.
While younger Londoners will see fares rise, Goldsmith promised that he would keep the freedom pass, allowing over-60s to travel free, throughout the mayoral term – a pledge also made by Khan.
Goldsmith said 270,000 homes and 250,000 jobs would be unlocked by transport investment, most of which is already planned. He said: “It’s not just vital to keeping London moving, it’s also key to unlocking the land to build the homes London so badly needs.
* The £1.9 bn figure is a wild exaggeration and Goldsmith has already used that for one shock-horror headline, saying that if fares were capped, Council Tax would have to go up. That's the sensible way of doing it, of course, it mean average Council Tax increases of about £30 each year IIRC, so big deal.
But to sum up: Goldsmith expects working age commuters to pay more so that landowners can sell their land for higher prices (now referred to as 'unlocking' for some unfathomable reason). Pensioners are being bought off with their Freedom Passes (Heaven forbid their Council Tax goes up).
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
16:39
1 comments
Labels: bribery, Greater London Authority, Subsidies, Zac Goldsmith
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Either they are terrible at maths or they are terrible liars.
Exhibit One
From The Evening Standard:
Zac Goldsmith claims Sadiq Khan would fund fares freeze with 59% rise in council tax
The row between the mayoral candidates over transport fares intensified today as Zac Goldsmith claimed his Labour rival would be forced to increase council tax by £175 a year for families to pay for a freeze.
Woah! Average Council Tax in London is £1,050 a year, slightly lower than the rest of the country (despite rental values and local per capita spending being about twice as high). That looks more like 17% to me…
Tory analysis of the figures suggests Mr Khan would have to increase City Hall’s council tax by 59 per cent — £175 a year for a typical household.
Sneaky! Technically, a London Council Tax bill is split into £850 for the local borough and a precept of £300 for the LGA (not many people notice this). £175 divided by £300 is of course something like 59%.
It's not even clear where the £175 comes from. TfL fare income is £3.8 billion a year (page 118 of their annual report, the other half of their budget is subsidies from the taxpayer), so if the normal price increase is 3% a year, a freeze means that TfL is foregoing £114 million a year, divided by 3.5 million homes = an average increase in Council Tax of £33 for each year that the freeze is in place.
Which seems like a perfectly sensible way of doing it to me, especially if the Council Tax increases were focused on Zones 1 and 2, who benefit most from TfL but pay the least towards it in fares, and especially if this meant that general taxpayer subsidies to TfL were reduced.
-------------------
Exhibit Two
From The Nuffield Foundation (who are otherwise decent chaps):
Public sector employers, such as the NHS and schools, will need to find more than £3 billion a year from 2016–17 to pay higher National Insurance contributions.
Aren't we always told that National Insurance is there to pay for the NHS?* Total NIC revenues are around £110 billion, the NHS costs a bit more than that, so it's not far off. A tax is not a real cost to the NHS, because the NHS is taxpayer funded (a point which Lola has made about a million times).
* Cognitive dissonance being what it is, pensioners also claim that they have paid for their current state pensions (just under £100 billion a year) with their past NI contributions. When challenged, they refuse to accept that National Insurance is not a magical tax which can be spent four times over (for both the NHS and other people's pensions in the past, as well as the current cost of the NHS with a surplus built up being used to pay current pensions). I have actually seen pensioner propaganda saying that pensions are too low because their past NI contributions were squandered on something else, meaning it is spent five times over or some such accounting bullshit.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
19:06
8
comments
Labels: liars, London, Maths, NHS, Public transport, Twats, Zac Goldsmith
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Vote buying? Who? Us?
From yesterday's Evening Standard:
GEORGE OSBORNE’S new Help to Buy London mortgage scheme could reduce first-time buyers’ monthly repayments by up to half, a top broker said today.

New buyers with a five per cent deposit can apply for government zero-interest equity loans of up to 40 per cent of the value of the property from today. Only having to find a mortgage for 55 per cent of the property will allow young buyers to access more attractive mortgage offers, said Ray Boulger, technical director at broker John Charcol.
On a £500,000 home, buyers with a five per cent deposit will need a £275,000 mortgage, compared with £475,000 without government backing. The Government’s equity loan is interest-free for five years and then has a rate of 1.75 per cent, rising by the level of RPI inflation plus one per cent each year. Help to Buy is available on new-build properties inside the M25 worth up to £600,000.
So even by their own admission, it will push up prices quite significantly; prices being the inverse of the effective interest rate.
And what a coincidence that Conservative mayoral candidate Zac rocks up for a photo shoot on the very day that the Conservative national government put this wizard wheeze into effect.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
18:23
4
comments
Labels: Housing, London, pork, Zac Goldsmith
Friday, 15 January 2016
"Zac Goldsmith giving up luxuries for January"
From The Evening Standard:
Zac Goldsmith has joined the army of people who have given up a luxury to raise money for Great Ormond Street Hospital. The Conservative mayoral candidate will go without champagne, caviar or quails' eggs for the rest of January in solidarity with the sick children at GOSH.
Mr Goldsmith said: “Great Ormond Street Hospital is one of our most extraordinary, most valued institutions. It gives hope to so many families, it saves young lives. It has become a byword for ground-breaking research, life-changing treatment, complete devotion to very sick children.
“So when the brilliant campaign — Give It Up For GOSH — asked me to give something up as a gesture of solidarity with the children at Great Ormond Street, I agreed. But I did so very much aware that nothing I could give up would match or even come close to what is asked of so many of the children who depend on the hospital.
“I am in the midst of a frantic election campaign and there’s little time for proper lunch or dinner. So I depend on quick snacks of caviar with a couple of quail's eggs washed down with a glass of champers. Giving them up is a tiny act of solidarity with some extremely brave children. Great Ormond Street is a wonderful cause, and it deserves our support.
"I've even persuaded my chauffeur to join in - so this month he's going without crisps and chocolate."
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
16:47
0
comments
Labels: Zac Goldsmith
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Killer Arguments Against LVT, Not (254 thru' 281)
It took a dozen Tory MPs to compile a cracking summary of at least eighteen completely false and misleading claims, which they helpfully summarised in a letter to the Evening Standard (21 Nov 2012, page 57):
As MPs representing London constituencies, we are very worried about the effect of a new property tax being proposed by the Liberal Democrats.(1)
Additional local property taxes would hit ordinary families (2) and pensioners(3) who have worked hard, saved carefully and paid their taxes.(4) It would include those with large mortgages(5) who are not otherwise capital-rich,(6) and professionals who live in shared houses in London.(7) Pensioners now on modest income living in their long-standing family home would be hit the hardest.(8)
The revaluation process need to impose this new tax requires inspectors to visit people's homes,(9) would take three years to complete,(10) and cost taxpayers over a quarter of a billion pounds.(11)
We believe that there are much better ways to ensure that the most well-off in society pay their fair share of tax.(12) The Lib-Dem "mansion tax" would turn out to be a "granny tax" fuelled by the politics of envy.(13) It would be another blow on top of the heavy burden of council tax which doubled under the last Labour government.(14)
It is costly, bureaucratic(15) and unfair:(16) Government ministers should resist this attack on those Londoners(17) who have worked hard all their lives and done the right thing.(18)
Bob Neill, Mike Freer, Nick De Bois, Bob Blackman, Angela Watkinson, Matthew Offord, Andrew Rosindell, Angie Bray, Zac Goldsmith, Mark Field and Mary Maclead, London Conservative MPs
1) Mainly they're concerned for their own buy-at-taxpayers'-expense-to-let portfolios and their banker friends.
2) Lie. Ordinary families in London do not live in homes worth more than £1 million or £2 million or whatever the cut-off point is.
3) Poor Widow Bogey.
4) Irrelevance. Massive windfall gains have accrued to everybody who bought a house in London over the past few decades, regardless of whether they were otherwise hard-working, careful savers or honest taxpayers.
5) A few of them yes, the proposed "mansion tax" would be about as terrible as an interest rate hike of rather less than one per cent. We can reasonably expect them to have budgeted for that, and they'll still probably be paying less than they originally budgeted for if they bought more than five years ago.
6) Since when does not being "capital-rich" have anything to do with it? isn't the traditional rallying cry that "Taxes on the rental value of land would hit the capital-rich, cash-poor"?
7) Who by implication are tenants. The Home-Owner-Ist élite celebrates the fact that London rents are rising year on year, and the tax would be borne by the owners not the tenants anyway.
8) Poor Widow Bogey again. Is it so terrible if they bank some of their million pound winnings and move elsewhere, so that a truly hard working/high earning family can move in?
9) Outright lie.
10) Outright lie.
11) Outright lie based on actual fact. The Morbidly Obese One claimed recently that doing a full Council Tax revaluation for the whole of the country would cost about £260 million, which is less than £10 per home and is the sort of thing that ought to be done in the interests of fairness anyway, or would you rather than HMRC saves itself a few quid by insisting you continue to pay tax based on your earnings of twenty-one years ago?
12) But they don't say it. Therefore lie.
13) Woah! Let's say we scrapped NIC, VAT and higher rate income tax and just had flat 20% flat income tax. Would that be "politics of envy" or a "rich giveaway"? For sure, somebody earning a million quid a year would be about £400,000 a year better off, but he'd still be chipping in £200,000 a year to the general pot, i.e. forty times as much as an average earner. Why is it so terrible to expect somebody in a £2 million house to pay ten times as much Council Tax as somebody in a median value home? Why does the latter count as "politics of envy" but not a proposal for a low-rate flat income tax?
14) The Council Tax is pennies, it raises less than the taxes on booze and fags. And even the "mansion tax" would be a lot, lot, lot less than what the old Domestic Rates would have been, which the Tories thoughtfully abolished in the 1980s.
15) Taxes on land are neither costly to administer nor particularly bureaucratic. That £260 million potential cost of a full Council Tax revaluation is less than one per cent of annual Council Tax receipts, and collection rates are very good (which means that the honest don't end up paying for the dishonest).
16) Define "fair".
17) But income tax is also an "attack on Londoners" because people in London have the highest incomes. Simple fact is that a tax on land values is a tax on land values, if land values are highest in London, then so be it.
18) Lie. People who are sitting on massive unearned windfall land price gains have usually done little or nothing to deserve them, it's like a lottery but more corrupt (and yes, I have also banked massive unearned windfall land price gains, which I duly declared for CGT, unlike most MPs, and it just sort of lands on your doormat, there is little skill or hard work involved).
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
21:01
16
comments
Labels: Bastards, Corruption, KLN, liars, Mansion Tax, Propaganda, Tories, Zac Goldsmith
Friday, 16 July 2010
G-d Bless Channel 4 News
As we well know, the purpose of the Electoral Commission is to create huge administrative barriers to entry, and, should a smaller party threaten to become a bigger party, to hound them mercilessly through the courts for minor technical breaches of the rules.
It appears that El Comm didn't bother looking through all the expense returns submitted for the last General Election, but to be fair, they published them online so that interested parties - such as Channel 4 News - could have a look.
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
12:23
0
comments
Labels: Elections, Electoral Commission, Fraud, Television, Tories, Zac Goldsmith
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Non-dom of the week
Posted by
Mark Wadsworth
at
12:58
2
comments
Labels: Caricature, Taxation, Tories, Zac Goldsmith
