What we will actually get:
Link to HOME (see all posts).
"...GVA are also commissioned to explore potential funding strategies to bring forward critical infrastructure within the Regeneration Area, including the Thameslink Station.
"This review will be complete in April 2013, and reported to Cabinet Resources later this year"
|(North is to the left; the A5 Edgware Road is along the bottom)|
'Cricklewood New Station'to replace the existing:
'Cricklewood Old Station'then! (Incidentally, it is next to part of the Brent Cross waste incinerator).
"Taking cognisance of the new station development, and the re-modelling of Cricklewood sidings, any work done at the current Cricklewood station would be potentially abortive cost.
The recommended option is to utilise Selective Door Opening [at the] station, configured to allow the maximum length of a 12-car train possible to stop at the existing platforms. Once the new 'Cricklewood' station becomes operational, a decision will have to be made as to the future of the current Cricklewood station."
“Concerns [were] raised at the Welsh Harp Joint Consultative Committee meeting of 21 March 2013 over the future of the Hendon Rail Station, as a result of new rail station proposals associated with the Brent Cross Cricklewood development.So it's progress - of sorts!
I have had confirmation from [the LB of Barnet] Transport and Regeneration Manager who dealt with this aspect of the Brent Cross Cricklewood submission that whilst the future of Cricklewood Station could be in question as a result of the proposals, the approved scheme would not result in the closure of Hendon station."
Senior Planning Officer, Major Developments Environment, Planning and Regeneration, LB of Barnet
|Click and collect the web site|
|Link to web site|
"This is not the first era of globalisation. What might be called Globalisation 1.0 was alive and well at the end of the 19th century, an era of free trade, mass migration and liberalised capital flows.
"It was described by John Maynard Keynes in the following way:
'The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole Earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages.'"What's the difference between Keynes's Londoner sipping his tea and today's Londoner slurping a latte while using a smartphone to buy something from Amazon? Sure, technology is faster and the global networks are more integrated. But in Edwardian Britain there was exactly the same confidence that the globalised world would continue uninterrupted as there is today.
"Yet the first era of globalisation did end. What’s more, a precise date can be put on the day it died: 28 June 1914, the day the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand set off the chain reaction that led to the outbreak of the first world war six weeks later. The unspoken question in Davos was whether 20 January 2017 will be another day that will go down in history for all the wrong reasons."
|Link to back of the net|
|This game needs a goal.|
|Link to web site (and below)|
|Link to web site|
"A year ago, I started this website. After having grown up in London, I was becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which our city was being exploited.
"One particular frustration was the way in which property developers were undermining the rules designed to protect our communities and our built environment (and making absurd profits in the process), and the lack of critical investigative journalism covering this subject.
"London is a city which is bigger than many countries in Europe. But it has only one daily newspaper, the Evening Standard. That newspaper provides almost no critical analysis of one of the greatest challenges facing us, the failure of the city to house itself. Instead, every new 'exclusive' property development is celebrated in their property pages, which seem to cater exclusively for a wealthy international elite.
"With this website, my goal was to bring a critical eye to London’s housing, property and development industries. To help develop a greater understanding as to why our city is failing, and share that knowledge with you, the readers.
"Over the course of a year, the site has managed to cover a huge number of issues, from the dark arts of daylight surveyors to some of the absurd lengths a property developer will go to, to destroy a London pub and turn it into a single family dwelling."
|Link to web site|
"And so the rich get richer. It was always true that inherited wealth was one of the most powerful indicators of the future prospects of individuals cross the social classes. Now, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' careful analysis of the trends in wealth accumulation, the old saw seems to be truer than for many decades.
"We already know, indeed, that British society is more unequal in the distribution of wealth than income that for the best part of a century: now we realise, as many have suspected, that the trend is about to become a great deal worse. It does not augur well for social cohesion, the creation of a fair society or economic efficiency. We should be worried.
"The IFS's data reveals the revolutionary, and mutually-reinforcing, effect of two major forces in British society since Margaret Thatcher became prime minister almost four decades ago. The increase in the rate of home ownership, coupled with a tripling of property values – even more in the London and the South-east – in that period has created a vast pool of wealth in a relatively small sector of society, almost by accident."
“The wealth of younger generations looks set to depend more on who their parents are than was the case for older generations. Today’s elderly have much more wealth to leave to their children than their predecessors did, primarily as the result of higher homeownership rates and rising house prices. At the same time, today’s young adults will find it harder to accumulate wealth of their own than previous generations did, due to the sharp fall in homeownership for that group, the dramatic decline of defined benefit pensions in the private sector and the stagnation in their incomes.”
|Date:||06 January 2017|
The first day of 2017 was marred by the death of one of Britain’s greatest economists, Sir Anthony (or Tony as he was universally known) Atkinson.
Tony had worked for decades on how to measure, and tackle, inequality. He was focused not just on inequalities in income and earnings, but also inequality in wealth. And with good reason. Wealth is vastly more unequally distributed than income. It is ownership of wealth that confers security, and often power, in a way that unreliable earnings may not. And while high-earning parents do tend to beget high-earning children, the inheritance of wealth is even more direct.
One of Tony’s important insights was that wealth matters more now than at any time since the 1930s because household wealth has been rising relative to income — from less than three times national income in the mid-1970s to more than five times national income today.
Wealth is also concentrated among the older generation. It's bound to be. You pay off your debts and your mortgage, and save for retirement as you get older. But this concentration is growing as younger generations struggle to get on the housing ladder, cannot access decent occupational pensions, and bear the brunt of a decade of earnings stagnation. At the same time, average wealth among the oldest has risen dramatically even in the past decade, not least as a result of rising house prices. Those now in their 60s and 70s will be wealthier still when they reach their 80s and 90s.
Much of that wealth will be inherited. Three quarters of those born in the 1970s expect an inheritance compared with only half of their parents. For much of the 20th century the role of inherited wealth in determining our economic wellbeing was in decline. Now it is getting more important again.
In part it is important because it is so unequally distributed. Even ignoring the super-wealthy, the poorer half of oldest households have only a quarter of the wealth of the richest tenth. And those lucky enough to inherit also tend to be those who have been helped in other ways. Higher income people — those in the top 20 per cent of lifetime income — are ten times as likely to have received an inheritance of more than £250,000 as those in the bottom half of lifetime incomes.
Different people will see those facts in different lights. Some will see an increased role for inheritance as something to be celebrated. Some will see it as a cause of deep anxiety.
The case against inheritance — and for an effective inheritance tax — has been put by philosophers for centuries. John Stuart Mill wanted to fix “a limit to what any one may acquire by the mere favour of others, without any exercise of his faculties”. If I get taxed on what I work hard to earn, how much more appropriate that I should be taxed on what I am merely gifted through the good fortune of having wealthy parents.
Yet when, in 2007, George Osborne offered to cut inheritance tax to facilitate wealth 'cascading down the generations' he was credited with a political masterstroke. Nobody much likes being taxed, but inheritance tax is specially hated. In the US “no taxation without respiration” is the rallying cry.
Two things explain this antipathy. One is the natural human desire to leave the fruits of one’s labour to one’s children. Up to a point this is always likely to trump considerations of wider social equity. A second, though, is the inadequacy of the current system. It is not hard to avoid inheritance tax if you have serious money, not least by the simple expedient of passing it on at least seven years before you die — not an option for those of us whose wealth is tied up in a home and a pension. There is also the complete absence of inheritance tax on agricultural land and on certain business assets. And that’s before you get into trusts and other such vehicles.
All of which is another way of saying the current inheritance tax doesn’t seriously try to tax transfers of wealth between the generations, certainly not for the really wealthy. That inevitably undermines support for it among the home-owning classes who are, or might be, caught in its net.
So it's really time to look again at this tax and try to close some of the most obvious loopholes. It hasn’t been seriously reviewed since it was introduced in its present form in 1986. One option, favoured by Tony Atkinson, is to move to a system of taxing receipts of gifts and inheritances. This would both tax what we presumably want to tax — the receipt of wealth — and get round the advantage enjoyed by those lucky enough to be able to pass on a lot during their life without paying tax.
There is no pretending, though, that this would be easy politically or administratively. It really is hard to tax transfers of wealth. We should do what we can to make the tax system fairer and more effective. But the real challenge must be to make inheritance matter less. That means action in the housing market — building more houses, cutting stamp duty, increasing council tax on more expensive properties. It means doing still more to promote social mobility through education and skills policy. And it means tilting policy away from supporting the relatively wealthy old towards the less wealthy young.
This article was first published by The Times and is reproduced here in full with permission.
|Link to web site|