[Tubby Isaacs]

Jonathan Portes said that too. They should have done that in March. If they can't get the economy growing to allow them to move the thresholds back, they're probably dead anyway.

[Tubby Isaacs]

New populist edge latest.

Don't believe a word Trump says, except when he says something that can be spun into an attack on Labour. Labour brought in quite a bit extra on the rich from freezing tax bands, changes to non dom. inheritance tax VAT on private schools, capital gains tax etc. And Sunak had previously increased them too.

Trump cut top rate taxes in 2017 and these are set to go up again at the end of this year. So that's not Trump raising anything. You think they'd let Starmer get away with cutting top rate tax for 8 years if they went up again?

And he's not going to do a "simple wealth tax" either.

[Boiler]

"Simple Wealth Tax".

FFS.

If you want to do something unpopular, just introduce a new band of income tax - say, 60% at a threshold of oh, I dunno - £500,000? I mean, why has income tax become such a sacred cow? People have believed the lie that you can have good public services and low taxation for far too long. All around us, we can see that it's bollocks.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Surprisingly, their biggest tax rise last time wasn't wealth, it was carbon tax (£90bn a year). Was pretty obvious that this couldn't be raised without a lot of impact being passed on to people on modest incomes, so has it been dropped or cut back? "Wealth tax" would be paid by the wealthy, whatever the problems with implementing it, so that might be why they're stressing that.

Don't know why they aren't saying more about income tax. I presume there's some polling that people think taking more than about half is harsh. Or some Laffer-type stuff (actual research, not a curve drawn on a napkin) that 60% would see less income raised than lower levels.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think they set fiscal policy like a typical small party- everybody gets their hobbyhorse policy in the program.

They wound up with £170bn of tax rises, £160bn extra day to day spending, and £90bn extra investment. That's £80bn of extra borrowing a year, borrowing not being particularly cheap. Doubtless there are people in the Greens who can see the problem with this, and say so, but it's considered "undemocratic" to take out anybody's brilliant policy. No wonder they think Rachel Reeves adding potentially an extra £100bn over 5 years by changing fiscal rules to favour investment is "austerity".

[The Weeping Angel]

New populist edge latest.

Don't believe a word Trump says, except when he says something that can be spun into an attack on Labour. Labour brought in quite a bit extra on the rich from freezing tax bands, changes to non dom. inheritance tax VAT on private schools, capital gains tax etc. And Sunak had previously increased them too.

Trump cut top rate taxes in 2017 and these are set to go up again at the end of this year. So that's not Trump raising anything. You think they'd let Starmer get away with cutting top rate tax for 8 years if they went up again?

And he's not going to do a "simple wealth tax" either.

The Greens opposed many of those measures, I also can't help but wonder that since a lot of Green party members are quite wealthy themselves, I can't help but think that taxing the very wealthy is just a convenient excuse to not pay extra tax themsleves.

[Boiler]

The Greens opposed many of those measures, I also can't help but wonder that since a lot of Green party members are quite wealthy themselves, I can't help but think that taxing the very wealthy is just a convenient excuse to not pay extra tax themsleves.

The sort of people who drive to the free trade organic supermarket in their electric SUVs, tutting as they step over the homeless on the pavements?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Building more homes doesn't provide more homes, apparently. And if does, they're "luxury" homes, even though there aren't any plans yet. Rent control reduces supply, whatever else it does. And there aren't all these empty homes sat about waiting for the Greens to take them over.

Otherwise, Zoe's on top of the subject.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see Sadiq's already talked about "higher density developments near transport". So not "luxury homes" at all. What she's doing here is not honest.

[The Weeping Angel]

In San Antonio, they've embarked on a housebuilding programme, and as a result, house prices have decreased by 10%.

[Boiler]

There's a huge new development at Haddon, adjacent to the A1(M) at Peterborough; which, combined with the ongoing final phases of Hampton (built on reclaimed land from the defunct brickyards) you'd have thought would bring house prices down round here.

Not a bit of it, sadly. I can see the Haddon development especially becoming a dormitory town given it really is right next to the A1(M) so giving easy access for car-based commuters to head towards London, Stevenage, Cambridge and Bedford.

[Abernathy]

Ahh, yet another sighting of "take back control". The infernal slogan is everywhere.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's the new "populist" messaging which they'll get from Zack Polanski, who Zoe Garbutt supports. As is calling high density developments near stations "luxury housing".

There's a good response from somebody BTL, who points out that she would actually the very high rents she sees quoted because she needs somewhere to live. The problem is when she goes to see the flat, dozens of people show up too and she doesn't get it. That's not really something that social housing or rent control can do anything about. This can only be helped by boosting supply, and if you don't boost it on not particularly good land near stations, where are you going to boost it?

[Youngian]

This can only be helped by boosting supply, and if you don't boost it on not particularly good land near stations, where are you going to boost it?

Adjacent to the A1(M) at Peterborough?

[Boiler]

This can only be helped by boosting supply, and if you don't boost it on not particularly good land near stations, where are you going to boost it?

Adjacent to the A1(M) at Peterborough?

See https://www.peterboroughmatters.co.uk/n ... at-haddon/

[Tubby Isaacs]

More from Zack.

https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weeken ... t-net-zero

“I’m really angry about net zero,” he told me, “I’m angry that the government are expecting some of the poorest in this country to step up to net zero, expecting people to install heat pumps or expecting people to get a train rather than a plane, even though a plane is a much cheaper option”.

I wasn't aware that the government did expect the poorest to get heat pumps or (to use an example Zack probably forgot to use) electric cars. The policy is to use government help to grow the market, at first people who have a bit of cash to spare, so that prices come down over time and become more affordable to a wider group.

In case you're wondering what Zack's populist line is, it's that a wealth tax pays for it all. Doubtless he thinks this is all clever comms, but I can almost hear it backfiring from here. "Net zero is really shit for the poor", eh Zack?

I note that this straight talker can't tell us whether he knew Carla Denyer was quitting before he announced his candidature. My guess is he probably did and realized afterwards it made him look bad.

[The Weeping Angel]

Admittedly I have a low opinion of the Greens but I would assume this would recieve some sort of pushback from within the party.