Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

i don't see the problem with the loans. The buyer is offered a deal, take it or leave it. We bought one using a personal car lease, probably not the most financially efficient method but very quick and convenient. I won't be applying for compensation.

Is it not like the PPI mortgage stuff where they were misold?
You're given a deal and it is your choice to accept or not only really applies where people who understood finances and were given a clear and honest picture of the reality.

But what is that core concept that people hate and does it bear any relation to what DEI actually is?

In the US at least, the DEI that people profess to hate is usually some strawman whipped up by podcasters and cable news hosts.  No suprise then that the new administration has purged the very words themselves from various agencies as if the word "equity" or the letters D, E, I when combined contain some sinister kabbalistic power.

Basically.
There's this big idea that it's especially hard to be a white man and that if you're a minority you can be as terrible as you like and you somehow get life handed to you on a plate.

A lot of it could be American Internet nonsense spill over, and kneejerk over reaction when you do get scholarships for black kids and that sort of thing, but there's quite the lack of recognition that lots of these policies to give people from less represented groups a shot apply whatever their colour

]

DEI is not a label. It is a specific set of policies that have been adopted by governments and the private sector throughout the world.

If you were going to defend it, you should probably know what it is.

Policies which further Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.  To know what those specific policies are, you will need to look them up for whatever organization you are interested in.  There are a lot of variations amongst those policies.

These two go against each other.

[Tamas]

I think it's very clear where influential people want the British public to pivot to from Labour. We are at the stage where Sky News is broadcasting Reform's live feed from Reform's own studio as Farage "interviews" one of his people.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-appearances-sky-news-35664340

[Tamas]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/04/met-arrest-woman-after-facebook-posts-about-her-ex-partner-a-serving-officer


Don't post bad things about police officers in Hungary. Sorry, I mean in the UK.

[Josquius]

I think it's very clear where influential people want the British public to pivot to from Labour. We are at the stage where Sky News is broadcasting Reform's live feed from Reform's own studio as Farage "interviews" one of his people.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-appearances-sky-news-35664340

.

Yep.
Long been clear to me they've huge establishment backing but the way Gary put it on the rest is politics adds a good bit of explanation to it.
The far right are going to do all sorts of nasty shit... But they'll leave the money alone. So if change must come, which it must, then that's what they want.

I finally got around to watching that incidentally.
I've ran into Garys economics before and he broadly seems right, though a bit overly sensationalist.
Also Alistair Campbell had a comment which was pretty spot on about him. He thinks too much of his background making him special. It helps a bit. But not as much as he thinks. Lots of labour MPs have poor backgrounds too.
Garys comment about how great he is and better than anyone else because he got good grades at school really rubbed me the wrong way.

[Sheilbh]

Looking at the Best for Britain statement I think it's nonsense and missing the really important story.

But that's to be expected. It is a left-wing pressure group statement and campaign into (short) left-wing tabloid story.

[Tamas]

Yeah this Gary character does rub me the wrong way in some respects, with lots of conman vibes, but I am finding myself accepting his arguments.

[Sheilbh]

I like him and don't think he's a conman at all - I think he really believes it. I just think on lots of points he's kind of wrong

Separately....

Oxford Clarion
@OxfordClarion
A block of six one-bedroom flats in Headington Quarry must be demolished for breaching planning permission. The High Court has refused an appeal, ruling the building in Quarry Mews was built higher than permitted and "clashed with the grain of development in Quarry High Street".

The reasons for the demolition discussed in the judgment:

(ii) The development, as built, has a significantly higher eaves height than as approved and a notably higher total height. This gives the development a bulkier appearance, with no degree of equality to buildings within the site or immediate area, sitting proud of the consistent roofline of the street, clashing with the grain of development of Quarry High Street and the streetscene. The position of the eaves line and depth of the tile hung roof element alongside the height and width of the bays again highlights the increased size and scale of the building from that approved. Due to the increased length, the building now has an awkward relationship to the front boundary wall and has the appearance of being built into the public highway, jarring with the established building lines of development on the street. The increased height and mass of the building does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Headington Quarry conservation area but detracts from the character of the area and instead further attracts attention to the bulky, prominent form of the development. No design rationale has been provided as to why the development needed to be constructed as built, as opposed to the approved scheme under 06/00023/FUL, and as to why it needs to be retained in such a manner. Accordingly, the development as constructed conflicts with Policies DH1, DH2 and DH3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 ("the Local Plan").
(iii) The footprint of the building is an additional 11.3m2 bigger than approved which has further reduced the small triangular green spaces provided at the northern and southern ends of the building, significantly reducing the overall shape and usability of the amenity space for the ground floor flats. Furthermore, the increased height of the building creates further overshadowing of these areas, reducing their usability for private outdoor dining and drying of clothes with reasonable circulation. There is no justification for the further reduction and as such this is in conflict with Policy H16 of the Local Plan.
(iv) 18 conditions were imposed on planning permission reference number 06/00023/FUL. The conditions imposed were the only way to ensure an acceptable development in planning terms in line with the wording of Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021. The unauthorised development, would not be controlled by planning conditions and is unacceptable in planning terms.

The development:


Now I kind of get the point that the developer got permission and breached it, so the building should be torn down and the developer restore the site. On the other hand I don't feel this is that bad and it's not like we have a housing crisis - and also I find the time gap between their planning permission (2006) and planning enforcement (2022) a bit mad.

I'd add that after fourteen years of Tory rule, the grounds for the developer trying to appeal this decision were the Public Sector Equality Duty (particularly with regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and the environmental benefit of not demolishing v demolishing.

Edit: Separately in order to help councils avoid going bust - or government having to grasp the nettle of adult social care - I see Angela Rayner has signed off on allowing councils to sell allotment land. Really don't know what we're going to do when we run out of assets to sell to cover our spending

Also achieving the rare alliance of a furious Jeremy Corbyn (who has an allotment) and the Telegraph. Feels like everything else in the public realm right now just very price of everything and value of nothing

[Josquius]

This angers me greatly.
Waste is insane to begin with. But then building higher is sometjing I'm all for. We need to do more mid rise stuff.

I came in the thread and scrolled from the bottom up and at first I thought it looked like a nice street. Very proper and traditional. Then I saw the context of the photo....

You know a better way to help councils avoid going bust? Build denser.


In other stuff.... So I just got back from two weeks out of the country and now I have to keep my vpn on permanently it seems.

[Tamas]

Care to elaborate on what Gary is wrong, Sheilbh? One thing I haven't found although I haven't really been looking is any sort of detail on his tax the rich idea. The obvious problem it seems is that any attempt to, say, tax over X value of assets would require a quagmire of rules and enforcement becuaee it would be trivial for the rich of disperse among holding companies and family members.

I guess simply having a national version of the council tax payable by all companies and individuals above a given tax bracket would be more feasible but I shudder at the thought of the political storm.

[Sheilbh]

Care to elaborate on what Gary is wrong, Sheilbh? One thing I haven't found although I haven't really been looking is any sort of detail on his tax the rich idea. The obvious problem it seems is that any attempt to, say, tax over X value of assets would require a quagmire of rules and enforcement becuaee it would be trivial for the rich of disperse among holding companies and family members.

I guess simply having a national version of the council tax payable by all companies and individuals above a given tax bracket would be more feasible but I shudder at the thought of the political storm.

The problem isn't that we don't tax the rich enough but that the middle don't pay enough.

We tax assets that are easy to tax in this country - either because they're here or they're being disposed of here (property, estates, capital gains) - and at, in international terms, relatively Euro-average rates.

I've no issue with any wealth tax that goes beyond that. But I think it's impossible in an free moving, free flowing global capital. I have no issue with a bit of deglobalisation and some light national, democratic capital controls - but I think that's what it would take for a meaningful tax on assets that can be moved. I don't really mind the wealthy evading their taxes, as long as they have to move to Switzerland/the Isle of Man/Monaco to do it, like Joan Collins and Roger Moore. But in an age of gloablised capital, they don't even need to do that.

I think the tax the billionaires line is something we've imported from the US which ignores the context. We have significantly higher taxes than the US already and we're not America. Many billionaires have a "need" to be in the US. Ultimately they are still the biggest economy, the most vibrant economy in the free world and if there's anywhere that's going to beat China in the tech race, it will be the US. That's not us.

Edit: In a way I think it's the problem of this moment. The right likes the economic order of globalisation and neoliberalism but dislikes the social and cultural consequences; the left likes those consequences but hates the material economic order that creates them. I think the next "order" will be structured by whichever side is willing to give up the bit they love in order to reform the bit they don't.

[HVC]

So is new construction not being built, but now they're going back 20 years to undo construction that's already done? Great policies. Just tell the council that's theres bats living in the attic

[garbon]

What counts as the middle? I definitely feel like I pay enough.

Especially for say the services my council provides...

[HVC]

Yeah, that goes against the narrative I've always heard. Poor are too poor to milk, and rich have resources to avoid tax so it's left to the middle to be squeezed. Now of course that narrative could always be wrong.

[Josquius]

Yes. This makes most sense to me.
The poor are maybe paying too much. They don't have much to pay.
The rich aren't paying anything like enough.
The middle are paying pretty ok.

Though I suppose define middle. Are we talking actual middle earners here or those on 6 figure incomes.

We need to change the tax setup in some areas, council tax most obviously (my approach is best so there :p), which will mean some pay more, some pay less, and some other taxes could be introduced on undesirable behaviours, but I don't think just taxing middle earners more is wise.

A wealth tax is a good idea. Ironically in Switzerland they have this (though it's flawed OC).

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, that goes against the narrative I've always heard. Poor are too poor to milk, and rich have resources to avoid tax so it's left to the middle to be squeezed. Now of course that narrative could always be wrong.

Ish - and it'll depend country by country. I do think a big problem for us is our exposure to America, so I think we import a lot of their discourse on this and other subjects when our economy is very different (for example, relevant to the wealth tax conversation, the share of wealth held by the top 1% is around 40% in the US - it's under 20% in the UK and lower than France or Sweden). But I think in general there's a really bad habit of left-wingers, especially in Anglo countries to want a Scandinavian style social democracy paid for by high earners and the rich. Which is fine, but that's not how Scandinavian countries pay for their social democracy - they have a significantly broader tax base and average people pay more. If you look at the OECD there is no country that spends more and taxes the average worker less than the UK. Historically when we had a more robust welfare state and internationally when we look at other examples - they are built on a broad tax base.

In the context of the UK there's a bit of a paradox which is really challenging - but I think demonstrates this point. Our tax take and spending as a percent of GDP are at the highest levels that they've been since the war (again, after fourteen years of Tory rule). At the same time the "tax wedge" (OECD invention that's basically share of total labour costs taken by income tax plus employee and employer social security) for the average worker is at the lowest it's been since the war (although pushed back up by Labour's employer social security rises).

There are complications in the UK - especially around if you have kids. But broadly as a share of revenue we take more from property, CGT and inheritance tax than the European average. Very high earners (broadly over £100k, say) pay tax rates that are broadly similar to Western European countries (I think, on average, about the same as the Netherlands, a little higher than Germany, a little lower than France or the Scandis). But someone on average to high salary (again, up to £100k) pays tax rates that are about the same as the US - average workers in Germany, the Netherlands etc pay significantly more.

And similarly as Garbon points out we don't feel like we're getting much for it.

All of this I think is as a result of really bad policy decisions by the Tories - but especially by the Coalition. So the signature Lib Dem policy, nicked by the Tories, almost doubled the "personal allowance" or tax free chunk of someone's income (until they earn £100k at which point it starts to be clawed back), which has hugely narrowed the tax base. Similarly they salami sliced spending but didn't actually stop providing any services (in fact I think the statutory services local government had to provide increased - the funding didn't). This is part of why councils are going bust and having to sell allotments - some councils are spending up to 85% of their entire budget on their statutory services (like social care) which leaves basically nothing for everything else (like maintenance of the public realm). I'd add we know what the answer is on social care - we've already had two Commissions that have come to very similar conclusions but Labour has decided to not use one of the biggest majorities in British history to do big things. So it'll continue to breakdown until crisis.

I'd add these have then been reinforced by Labour's self-imposed fiscal rules and the promises Reeves and Starmer made over tax during the election which means they've really, really painted themselves into a corner.

There are lots and lots of problems with our tax system which I think are largely how over-complicated it is because of the Treasury working to ensure the Chancellor has some rabbits to pull out of their hat on budget day. I think we could raise more overall from things like CGT and property tax (and possibly inheritance tax - though it is really unpopular in really interesting ways) by reforming it - I also think they'd be less vulnerable to the ability of capital to flow easily in our globalised, neoliberal world. But capital gains reform is less sexy than wealth tax

A wealth tax is a good idea. Ironically in Switzerland they have this (though it's flawed OC).

Switzerland's capital gains and inheritance regime is vastly lower than the UK's though. The Swiss model shows that if you set up everything (CGT, inheritance, trust law, banking secrecy, safes full of Nazi gold) to attract global wealth then a low wealth tax works.

I'd add that broadly speaking countries either tax wealth during life or at death. From what I've read (Dan Neidle's particularly interesting on all the evidence) basically nowhere does both at a material level (or without huge carveouts). The UK taxes at death.

There are loads of revenue raising, simplifying reforms that could be done to inheritance tax, property tax especially council tax and capital gains - which I think could also be good for the economy. Not least because all three are in different ways a mess that can be quite distortionary. But that is less fun than a wealth tax