Brilliant. Just brilliant. I have managed to avoid Covid but instead have bronchitis with the sort of hacking cough that would have got me Pete Postlethwaite's part in Brassed Off.
How the hell did that happen? I have tried to be so careful in recent weeks.
Ah, well - back to my solitary life with only sheep and lambs for company.
On the plus side I sound like Marlene Dietrich when speaking so I hope they appreciate my croaky rendition of Lili Marlene.
One benefit of cutting VAT is that it can be done quickly, the VAT cut for hospitality business was implemented a week after it was announced. It takes over 3 months to change the NIC threshold.
Tories getting off far too lightly for their poor stewardship of the economy at the moment. If Labour had presided over this, the Tories would have been far more aggressive. It’s a disaster.
Problem is that Starmer would not have taken us out of lockdown last summer costing billions
Boris has faced in 2 years Brexit , covid, and war in Europe and of course he has had failures but he has also had successes
His big mistake was listening to his chief whip and the idiotic JRM over Paterson which then rolled into wallpapergate and partygate which are self inflicted wounds that his opponents are benefitting from
I am yet to be convinced labour have a better answer to the economy and it is for them to make the case, just not being conservatives is not enough
The Tories deserve the very same objective consideration for their handling of the economy that they gave Labour and Brown during the global credit crunch.
Of course they do, but at present labour do not have an offer and the lib dems idea of dropping vat to 17.5% handing a huge tax cut to the wealthy is ridiculous and at a cost of 18 billion
The windfall tax is a better idea than you give it credit for. But you’ll never be convinced of that.
But generally it’s a bit rich for government supporters to demand solutions to this shambles from the opposition. No opposition worth its salt would show it’s plans two years out. No, this mess is a Tory mess.
I am neutral on a windfall tax but as commented on the media this morning it is a one off and is not the solution
HMG has laid out its economic plans and to suggest that the opposition remain silent on their solutions would indicate they do not have any better ideas
If you want a Labour budget, vote Labour.
What would it look like?
I don't want a Tory budget, a Labour budget, or a Lib Dem budget. I want a budget that raises taxes fairly.
Me too
Is that a budget which raises taxes but where nobody has to pay more tax.
I would like to see Labour broadening it’s attack. The cost of living is acute, but I would also attack on inflation more generally. The Tories let the genie out of the bottle and are rotting the lifetime savings and pensions of the middle class. So they may be able to pay for gas today, but everything they have worked for has also been devalued by Boris.
You can apply that across Europe which has niching to do with Boris
I can't remember the Tories making that point during the credit crunch.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
I feel that my paucity of sleep may contribute to an excess of grumpiness by me on here so I shall exit stage left, hopefully not pursued by a bear.
After the chaos in A&E last night I'm not in a good mood with Boris Johnson and co. though to be fair I wasn't exactly their biggest fan beforehand. The NHS is in such a terrible state. Because people can't get GP appointments they attend A&E for things like basic wound dressings. Was I one of those? Apparently not according to the emergency doctor who spoke to me. But the situation is just complete chaos.
I think back 30 years, 20 years, 10 years ... how was Britain then compared to now?
Scores out of 100 on all things of well-being:
1992 70 (pre Black Wednesday)
2002 75 (post 9/11 otherwise higher)
2012 75 (The coalition. Bliss.)
2022 2 (and I think that's being generous)
The country is shit
Right I'm dragging my tired wounded body back to bed. Apologies for incoherence. Some will doubtless say that it's no different from normal
The country is not, as you put it, 'shit'. There is a great deal to take pride of in this country, our people, and its place in the world. That does not mean we are immune to criticism, or that we are perfect. Just that we are facing severe problems in Covid, Brexit and the effects of the Ukraine war. Of these, Brexit is the most minor.
But Covid and the effects of the Ukraine war are common to a large number of countries in Europe and the world.
And hope you feel better soon.
When you come from the starting position that Heathener posts from behind a blacklisted vpn with shall we say “an agenda”, it’s quite interesting reading their posts. Little needling away to see what works at causing dissent. Easy to imagine a white board of buzz topics with “NHS” circled. A flow arrow pointing into it with “create sympathy first” written in Cyrillic. Perhaps I am too cynical…
Yeah yeah yeah.
In one way I don't mind you keeping this up even though it's insulting. The reason is that if enough tories stick their fingers in their ears like this then it helps the opposition parties' chances in 2024.
I've told you why I use a VPN and I think it's madness that everyone doesn't use one. 'Cookies'? That's a laugh. They are trackers and ever since Cambridge Analytica I would never ever ever ever use the internet without blocking all cookies and using a VPN.
I'm sorry you refuse to take that at face value but if you look at what I post about ... I mean really, truly, you are 'aving a larf if you seriously believe I'm a troll or a bot.
No troll could be this smart, nor so cute
Anyway, this will fall on deaf ears but I shall keep posting my reflections on life, the universe and everything and if you choose to refuse to pay any attention that's up to you.
x
Doesn't want to enable cookies but does use a clubcard. Lol.
Tesco make a small fortune selling Clubcard data via their subsidiary Dunhumby. They have created consumer profile types built from your personal data gathered in Clubcard to allow people like me to better target out shit so that you buy more of it.
Why? If that works I am just going to buy stuff I'd usually buy at Tesco, elsewhere, no? It makes sense if you are just a wine merchant and think you can sell wine snobs' details to purveyors of fine cheese, but if you sell everything....
Why does it work? Because you can target groups of consumers using their Clubcard data. I want to reach bearded hipsters who like aubergines and lentils? Simple - Dunhumby will sell me their data so I can reach out only to them with my promotional offer.
Yes I see that, but if you sell them aubergines and lentils that's aubergines and lentils they aren't buying from Tesco
I suppose the answer is Dunhumby fees exceed profit margin on as and ls. Which makes me ask whether you are getting such a bargain.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Exactly.
'One of their strongest allies.' But what has he actually done? Nothing but posturing. As usual.
The one thing Johnson excels at is photo ops, which enables him to give the impression of doing lots about everything. beneath the charade there is nothing.
We know that Johnson and Zelenskyy are in contact with each other several times a day.
Says whom?
I bet you that is more bollocks coming from Johnson.
Says Volodymyr Zelenskyy!
"I’m in constant contact with @BorisJohnson. Talked about critical humanitarian situation in the blocked cities, shared information about the peace talks. Discussed strengthening sanctions against Russia and defense cooperation between Ukraine and Great Britain."
"Talked to @BorisJohnson again. The United Kingdom is our powerful ally. Discussed the defensive support for 🇺🇦, intensification of anti-Russian sanctions and post-war security guarantees. We look forward to the donors' conference for Ukraine."
"Held regular talks with 🇬🇧 PM @BorisJohnson. Informed about the heroic struggle of 🇺🇦 people against the Russian aggression. Grateful for the strong support, including in terms of security. We’re committed to strengthen the anti-war coalition & ensure peace in 🇺🇦. #StopRussia"
And various other tweets. Now it was the Telegraph that said Zelenskyy and Johnson were in contact via text messages. You might have doubts about their impartiality as a source, but it seems to be borne out by the way in which Zelenskyy talks about Johnson and the support he is receiving from the UK.
The Ukranian government, and the Ukranian people, are united in their praise for the UK and the assistance they’ve been delivering over a period of years, and under several different politicians and military leaders in the key roles.
It’s something of which Britons should all take pride, no matter what we may think of any specific British politician. 🇬🇧🇺🇦
I've not been shy in criticising Boris as inherently unsuitable and that he should not be PM even if a good showing on Ukraine, so I don't really get why some act like he hasnt received particular praise and contact from Zelensky, beyond that of others.
It doesn't change my overall opinion of him, but I cannot very well ignore that he is not isolated or uninfluential in this crisis. It is not credible he gets praise from someone in the know for doing nothing.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
I see the GOP are going full QAnon for the midterms.
Everything Democrat is being labelled as pedophile. Given the level of messaging discipline of the GOP and how that feeds into people's twitter feeds I'm giving it 3 months before posters on here are parroting "legitimate concerns"
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
I noticed the slogan a few years ago when it cropped up in advertising on a regular basis. My first thought was "Why?" I should waste money on some expensive frippery because I'm special, and I can afford it?
Perhaps it's a generational divide?
Yes, it doesn't work for my austere Calvinist soul either.
"You're not as good as you think you are, so need to work harder" is a great driver of the work ethic, but a terrible political slogan!
Even as a work ethic it can rebound. Generally speaking 'work smarter' as opposed to 'work harder' is more useful. Orwell made Boxer into somewhat of a figure of fun.
Boxer wasn’t a figure of fun - he was a tragic character. The message was that the good natured can be abused by the unscrupulous
Or, more accurately, they vote to ban legal abortion. Illegal and unsafe abortions will continue.
Good point; while abortions will not be 'allowed' will the practice itself be illegal? In other words will a woman be prosecuted for seeking or actually having one?
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
The devil is not in general opinion but in detail. Personally I agree with the Clinton doctrine: abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'. There is, to say the least, a debate to be had about how to get to this sanest and most balanced of positions.
Despite the dogmatic hotheads at both ends, truly a debate is to be had, and this is an issue where morality can't be put on one side. This is proved by the unease from every sort of feminist about selective sex abortion, ie aborting girls because they are girls. At that point most feminists cease wanting abortion on demand, though they find it hard to say so.
I noticed the slogan a few years ago when it cropped up in advertising on a regular basis. My first thought was "Why?" I should waste money on some expensive frippery because I'm special, and I can afford it?
Perhaps it's a generational divide?
Yes, it doesn't work for my austere Calvinist soul either.
"You're not as good as you think you are, so need to work harder" is a great driver of the work ethic, but a terrible political slogan!
Even as a work ethic it can rebound. Generally speaking 'work smarter' as opposed to 'work harder' is more useful. Orwell made Boxer into somewhat of a figure of fun.
Boxer wasn’t a figure of fun - he was a tragic character. The message was that the good natured can be abused by the unscrupulous
Quite; but it was darkly comic that he always promised he would work harder.
I would like to see Labour broadening it’s attack. The cost of living is acute, but I would also attack on inflation more generally. The Tories let the genie out of the bottle and are rotting the lifetime savings and pensions of the middle class. So they may be able to pay for gas today, but everything they have worked for has also been devalued by Boris.
You can apply that across Europe which has niching to do with Boris
I can't remember the Tories making that point during the credit crunch.
I do not recall Europe at war at that time
Costs of living were already increasing faster than wages before Russia invaded, no? Feel like we're being gaslit here.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
The devil is not in general opinion but in detail. Personally I agree with the Clinton doctrine: abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'. There is, to say the least, a debate to be had about how to get to this sanest and most balanced of positions.
Despite the dogmatic hotheads at both ends, truly a debate is to be had, and this is an issue where morality can't be put on one side. This is proved by the unease from every sort of feminist about selective sex abortion, ie aborting girls because they are girls. At that point most feminists cease wanting abortion on demand, though they find it hard to say so.
I once went to a talk and discussion on 'designer babies' in Thailand. Many there, but by no means all, were apparently brought up Judeo-Christian. Some of that which was discussed was, to Western ears, chilling.
I see the GOP are going full QAnon for the midterms.
Everything Democrat is being labelled as pedophile. Given the level of messaging discipline of the GOP and how that feeds into people's twitter feeds I'm giving it 3 months before posters on here are parroting "legitimate concerns"
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Is there a risk? Yes, accidental overreach - for the sake of some felicitous phrases, we may find we've talked ourselves into supplying Ukraine with offensive weapons as well, which would move beyond helping prevent the invasion being a success (clearly right) to extending the war indefinitely to a fight over the Donbas and Crimea (IMO a mistake). Opinions will differ on that, but we should be wary of Johnson's lack of attention to detail - whatever we do, it needs to be thought through and not rhetoric-led.
I think the Ukrainian strategy is to push the Russians back to where they were before February 24. They will clearly need some offensive weaponry to do that. I'd be amazed if they went into Crimea militarily. But to retake Kherson, Melitopol and Mariupol they will need some offensive weapons. Simply providing defensive weapons means stopping the Russians making any further progress. The Ukrainians may be prepared to make a commitment to resolving the sovereignty of the previously occupied territories through non-military means.
A reasonable solution would be to turn the water back on to Crimea whilst agreeing to freeze the issue of its future for 10 or 15 years. The Donbass could probably do with an Ireland style approach. That will be painful as Russia occupied it and purposely wrecked the two cities there so it is hardly reasonable but making peace sometimes demands that. The problem is that such an agreement would not really give Putin a 'win'. I wouldn't worry about that except for the nuclear weapons and fascistic tendencies he displays.
If the Ukrainians want support to try to take back Donbas I'd hope we'd not restrain them. Everyone accepts Crimea is a different beast.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I have managed to avoid Covid but instead have bronchitis with the sort of hacking cough that would have got me Pete Postlethwaite's part in Brassed Off.
How the hell did that happen? I have tried to be so careful in recent weeks.
Ah, well - back to my solitary life with only sheep and lambs for company.
On the plus side I sound like Marlene Dietrich when speaking so I hope they appreciate my croaky rendition of Lili Marlene.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I see the GOP are going full QAnon for the midterms.
Everything Democrat is being labelled as pedophile. Given the level of messaging discipline of the GOP and how that feeds into people's twitter feeds I'm giving it 3 months before posters on here are parroting "legitimate concerns"
"Just asking questions."
They key figure to watch is Christopher Rufo. He was the ideas guys behind generating the CRT panic so eagerly bought into by many. He's now moved onto the pedophile messaging - Disney is his first target but it's part of a larger strategy.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
Tories getting off far too lightly for their poor stewardship of the economy at the moment. If Labour had presided over this, the Tories would have been far more aggressive. It’s a disaster.
Problem is that Starmer would not have taken us out of lockdown last summer costing billions
Boris has faced in 2 years Brexit , covid, and war in Europe and of course he has had failures but he has also had successes
His big mistake was listening to his chief whip and the idiotic JRM over Paterson which then rolled into wallpapergate and partygate which are self inflicted wounds that his opponents are benefitting from
I am yet to be convinced labour have a better answer to the economy and it is for them to make the case, just not being conservatives is not enough
The Tories deserve the very same objective consideration for their handling of the economy that they gave Labour and Brown during the global credit crunch.
Of course they do, but at present labour do not have an offer and the lib dems idea of dropping vat to 17.5% handing a huge tax cut to the wealthy is ridiculous and at a cost of 18 billion
The windfall tax is a better idea than you give it credit for. But you’ll never be convinced of that.
But generally it’s a bit rich for government supporters to demand solutions to this shambles from the opposition. No opposition worth its salt would show it’s plans two years out. No, this mess is a Tory mess.
I am neutral on a windfall tax but as commented on the media this morning it is a one off and is not the solution
HMG has laid out its economic plans and to suggest that the opposition remain silent on their solutions would indicate they do not have any better ideas
If you want a Labour budget, vote Labour.
What would it look like?
I don't want a Tory budget, a Labour budget, or a Lib Dem budget. I want a budget that raises taxes fairly.
Me too
Is that a budget which raises taxes but where nobody has to pay more tax.
I was using "raise" in the sense "levy". So indeed a budget can raise the same amount of tax as the last one. It's what they do. Sometimes of course they will increase, or decrease, the tax burden.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
Main way seems to be a windfall tax on profits of oil and gas companies
Given BP and Shell will have billion upon billion of Russian write-offs, they won't be paying a penny. A more stupid time to go for a windfall tax it is hard to imagine. But it is Labour's knee-jerk muscle memory.
Stupid. Because what is Labour's response when Boris says "We supported the decisions of Shell and BP to withdraw from their investments in Russia. But in doing so, they have incurred massive losses. The Leader of the Opposition wants to destroy their cashflows. He proposes taxing them at the very time he instinctively thinks they are sat on vast profits. The Windfall Tax will not raise a tiny fraction of the sums he thinks it will. So, when that ruse fails, where is the money actually going to come from? We need answers."
The trouble is not the windfall tax idea per-se but the way it has been communicated.
A windfall tax would be on the North Sea ringfenced profits of the oil companies (a lot of the most profitable of which are actually foreign owned, sometimes obscure businesses not BP and Shell). So regardless of the global profits of these companies, what matters is what they are making in the North Sea. It would raise a reasonable amount of money, and some of the biggest payers would be PE backed / Chinese owned businesses.
The trouble is politicians conflate the global consolidated profits published by the oil majors with the North Sea ring-fence profits, which in some cases are negative (e.g. if they are spending a lot of money on decommissioning).
The Supreme Court could help the Democrats if they overturn Roe v Wade . The mid terms include many state legislature elections . So the message will be vote Democrat to save your abortion rights . This sort of wedge issue will be needed for the Dems to help their turnout .
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
Yes, yours is the same dilemma I had myself. Remain part of a party that has moved to a more populist/Trumpist/Faragist position in the hope sanity returns, or just accept that it has moved so far away from what I believe in that I have to leave. Like you I chose the latter. If a less clownish populist leader returns I will reconsider membership.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
That 19% of lowest decile household income spent on VAT, makes no sense at all. It would require almost all spending to be fully VAT rated, when we know that rent, food, council tax are all exempt, and utility bills only charged at 5%.
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
I don't think Oklahoma has voted other than Republican for years, has it. (too lazy to look it up!)
Indeed, the last time Oklahoma voted for a Democrat for President was for Johnson in 1964.
Plus all its Senators, its US representatives, its governor and a majority of its state legislature are GOP too
Oklahama is one of only two states where Trump won every county in 2020. Gore even won a number of rural counties as late as 2000 which are now rock solid Republican. On the flipside though, with a widening of the urban/suburban rural divide, Biden almost won Oklahoma county (Oklahoma City) for the first time since 1964. Oklahama's 5th congressional district also went democrat in 2018 before flipping back in 2020.
Am hearing rumour that FPN coming Johnson's way today.
Oh you tease ! Lol
Even if he does get one by issuing it now whilst the recess is on helps Johnson and of course he apparently was given the wrong information and didn’t realize he was at a party !
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
Or, more accurately, they vote to ban legal abortion. Illegal and unsafe abortions will continue.
Good point; while abortions will not be 'allowed' will the practice itself be illegal? In other words will a woman be prosecuted for seeking or actually having one?
Apparently it will be a felony with the punishment being up to 10 years imprisonment.
On a different topic, we're looking at some epoch-making Northern Irish Assembly election results, with a nationalist party likely to top the polls for the first time following the collapse in the DUP vote. The DUP seems to be losing votes to both the centre and to the more extreme TUV.
However, looking at the polling at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election#Opinion_polls , I note there's this big difference in the TUV's results. Polling by LucidTalk for the Belfast Telegraph finds the TUV around 9-14%, but polling for The Irish News finds them around 5-6%. That's a big difference. You don't see these big differences for the other parties' polling.
I would like to see Labour broadening it’s attack. The cost of living is acute, but I would also attack on inflation more generally. The Tories let the genie out of the bottle and are rotting the lifetime savings and pensions of the middle class. So they may be able to pay for gas today, but everything they have worked for has also been devalued by Boris.
You can apply that across Europe which has niching to do with Boris
I can't remember the Tories making that point during the credit crunch.
I do not recall Europe at war at that time
Costs of living were already increasing faster than wages before Russia invaded, no? Feel like we're being gaslit here.
And look what we're being charged for that fcuking gas!
Am hearing rumour that FPN coming Johnson's way today.
Oh you tease ! Lol
Even if he does get one by issuing it now whilst the recess is on helps Johnson and of course he apparently was given the wrong information and didn’t realize he was at a party !
Yeah I have no doubt he'll survive - but that's probably to Labour's GE24 advantage.
I would like to see Labour broadening it’s attack. The cost of living is acute, but I would also attack on inflation more generally. The Tories let the genie out of the bottle and are rotting the lifetime savings and pensions of the middle class. So they may be able to pay for gas today, but everything they have worked for has also been devalued by Boris.
You can apply that across Europe which has niching to do with Boris
I can't remember the Tories making that point during the credit crunch.
I do not recall Europe at war at that time
If Labour was in power right now you'd be blaming them regardless of a war.
On a different topic, we're looking at some epoch-making Northern Irish Assembly election results, with a nationalist party likely to top the polls for the first time following the collapse in the DUP vote. The DUP seems to be losing votes to both the centre and to the more extreme TUV.
However, looking at the polling at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election#Opinion_polls , I note there's this big difference in the TUV's results. Polling by LucidTalk for the Belfast Telegraph finds the TUV around 9-14%, but polling for The Irish News finds them around 5-6%. That's a big difference. You don't see these big differences for the other parties' polling.
So, what's up? How well is the TUV doing?
Probably in between, though the better it does the worse the DUP and UUP do and the reverse too.
Or, more accurately, they vote to ban legal abortion. Illegal and unsafe abortions will continue.
Good point; while abortions will not be 'allowed' will the practice itself be illegal? In other words will a woman be prosecuted for seeking or actually having one?
Apparently it will be a felony with the punishment being up to 10 years imprisonment.
Makes one weep. What is wrong with these people? Not even Christian charity!
Why does Toogendart's name keep getting mentioned? He's so remainy he makes Lord Adonis look like a Hartlepool dole wallah smerking tabs in a tracksuit. It's impossible for him to be tory leader.
Because at some point even Tories will realise that they would rather forget about Brexit. It will soon be as irrelevant as the Corn Laws. No-one will really believe that Hunt or even Starmer for that matter will take us back into the EU, largely because the EU wouldn't want us. It is yesterday's war.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I have managed to avoid Covid but instead have bronchitis with the sort of hacking cough that would have got me Pete Postlethwaite's part in Brassed Off.
How the hell did that happen? I have tried to be so careful in recent weeks.
Ah, well - back to my solitary life with only sheep and lambs for company.
On the plus side I sound like Marlene Dietrich when speaking so I hope they appreciate my croaky rendition of Lili Marlene.
Hope you are soon on the mend. But take care who you socialise with. Or next up, knowing your luck, you'll be reporting Sheep Pox...
I see the GOP are going full QAnon for the midterms.
Everything Democrat is being labelled as pedophile. Given the level of messaging discipline of the GOP and how that feeds into people's twitter feeds I'm giving it 3 months before posters on here are parroting "legitimate concerns"
A tactic that seems to be replicated in the much smaller pool of Scotpol with regard to GRA reform, and not just by Unionists.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
Doesn't that first graph (old though it is) point to the poorest spending a greater proportion of their income on VAT?
And the second graph contradicts it.
Not really. The 2nd graph just shows the richest spend more of their household expenditure on VAT. The income they invest in savings, property, pension, eating out?, cars?, etc. is quite probably excluded from 'household expenditure' - would need to see the definition to be sure.
The Supreme Court could help the Democrats if they overturn Roe v Wade . The mid terms include many state legislature elections . So the message will be vote Democrat to save your abortion rights . This sort of wedge issue will be needed for the Dems to help their turnout .
They won't overturn it. They'll just eat away at the edges unti lnothing is left.
It's exactly what they did to the VRA. Shelby County invalidated section 5 with the bullshit justification that if there were any actual issues then a section 2 complaint could be brought. The court has recently invalidated section 2 in all but name. The VRA is all but completely struck from the law books but there is no big rallying "Corrupt Supreme Court overrules law" moment.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
Plenty of Remain voters who voted for Major in 1992 or even 1997 are now voting LD or even Starmer Labour.
Plenty of Leave voters who voted for Kinnock in 1992 and Blair in 1997 voted for Boris' Tories in 2019 and some are still doing so.
Some Cameron voters from 2015 are also now voting LD or Starmer Labour while most UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting for Boris' Tories.
If Russia is preventing Ukrainian ships from leaving Odessa then surely Turkey has to block access to the Black Sea to all Russian vessels? And can't Nato escort Ukrainian ships out?
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I have managed to avoid Covid but instead have bronchitis with the sort of hacking cough that would have got me Pete Postlethwaite's part in Brassed Off.
How the hell did that happen? I have tried to be so careful in recent weeks.
Ah, well - back to my solitary life with only sheep and lambs for company.
On the plus side I sound like Marlene Dietrich when speaking so I hope they appreciate my croaky rendition of Lili Marlene.
I hope you're not the index case for a particularly nasty disease of sheep jumping the species barrier...
I feel that my paucity of sleep may contribute to an excess of grumpiness by me on here so I shall exit stage left, hopefully not pursued by a bear.
After the chaos in A&E last night I'm not in a good mood with Boris Johnson and co. though to be fair I wasn't exactly their biggest fan beforehand. The NHS is in such a terrible state. Because people can't get GP appointments they attend A&E for things like basic wound dressings. Was I one of those? Apparently not according to the emergency doctor who spoke to me. But the situation is just complete chaos.
I think back 30 years, 20 years, 10 years ... how was Britain then compared to now?
Scores out of 100 on all things of well-being:
1992 70 (pre Black Wednesday)
2002 75 (post 9/11 otherwise higher)
2012 75 (The coalition. Bliss.)
2022 2 (and I think that's being generous)
The country is shit
Right I'm dragging my tired wounded body back to bed. Apologies for incoherence. Some will doubtless say that it's no different from normal
The country is not, as you put it, 'shit'. There is a great deal to take pride of in this country, our people, and its place in the world. That does not mean we are immune to criticism, or that we are perfect. Just that we are facing severe problems in Covid, Brexit and the effects of the Ukraine war. Of these, Brexit is the most minor.
But Covid and the effects of the Ukraine war are common to a large number of countries in Europe and the world.
And hope you feel better soon.
When you come from the starting position that Heathener posts from behind a blacklisted vpn with shall we say “an agenda”, it’s quite interesting reading their posts. Little needling away to see what works at causing dissent. Easy to imagine a white board of buzz topics with “NHS” circled. A flow arrow pointing into it with “create sympathy first” written in Cyrillic. Perhaps I am too cynical…
Yeah yeah yeah.
In one way I don't mind you keeping this up even though it's insulting. The reason is that if enough tories stick their fingers in their ears like this then it helps the opposition parties' chances in 2024.
I've told you why I use a VPN and I think it's madness that everyone doesn't use one. 'Cookies'? That's a laugh. They are trackers and ever since Cambridge Analytica I would never ever ever ever use the internet without blocking all cookies and using a VPN.
I'm sorry you refuse to take that at face value but if you look at what I post about ... I mean really, truly, you are 'aving a larf if you seriously believe I'm a troll or a bot.
No troll could be this smart, nor so cute
Anyway, this will fall on deaf ears but I shall keep posting my reflections on life, the universe and everything and if you choose to refuse to pay any attention that's up to you.
x
You may not be a Russian troll, but a troll you most definitely are,
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Tory activist with similar political views (I guess) to @Stuartinromford . Until the lying piece of incompetent crap that is currently Tory leader and PM is removed I will be lending my vote to the LDs
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
Does India lack confidence in its relationship with Russia? Can't they see that the Russians are now the supplicants in this partnership? Perhaps they feel that damaging relations with Moscow would make them too reliant on the west. Or do they craftily sense an opportunity with a weak Russia?
I think India's position comes from a whole host of competing factors. A big one is their rather large military partnership with Russia - which goes from aircraft carriers to aircraft. I think India buys about half of their military equipment from Russia, and they were gaining a lot of knowledge in high-tech weaponry from the Russians. There's also a requirement to do differently to Pakistan, who were firmly in the US sphere when it comes to military equipment (now China), and an understandable anti-imperial feeling.
Russia is an empire too, of course, as was the Soviet empire on a still larger scale - something that many decades of anti-imperialist rhetoric had somehow obscured in the consciousness of half the globe.
India's biggest tie to Russia is perhaps its energy dependence. Looking ahead, its rapidly growing domestic arms industry, together with numerous possible alternate suppliers, ought to make it independent of Russia for weapons.
Pakistan has distanced itself from the US and leant towards Russia/China. India ought to move in the opposite direction.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
That 19% of lowest decile household income spent on VAT, makes no sense at all. It would require almost all spending to be fully VAT rated, when we know that rent, food, council tax are all exempt, and utility bills only charged at 5%.
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
The IFS report explains it thus:
However, looking at a snapshot of the patterns of spending, VAT paid and income in the population at any given moment is misleading, because incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed through borrowing and saving. Consider a student or a retiree: their current income is likely to be quite low but their lifetime earnings could be relatively high. The student may borrow to fund spending, whilst the retiree may be running down savings. Similarly, many people in the lowest income decile will be temporarily not in paid work and able to maintain relatively high spending in the short period they are out of the labour market. Because their spending is higher than their current income, these people will be paying a high fraction of their current income in VAT. Similarly, those with high current incomes tend to have high saving, and so appear to escape the tax, but they will face it when they come to spend the accumulated savings. Because of this ‘consumption smoothing’, expenditure is probably a better measure of living standards (and households’ perceptions of the level of spending they can sustain).
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
Because the tax increase hits the poorest hardest. So we need to make a cut to restore money in people's pockets which they can spend in the economy. Put UC up as well - unlike tax cuts for the wealthy every pound given at the bottom of the economy gets spent, which means jobs which means taxes.
Davey has made a big mistake in suggesting a vat cut at 18 billion he actually quoted, handing huge sums to the better off
When money is tight it has to be targeted to the poorest which Rishi failed to address
I've just pointed out that a VAT cut DOES target the poorer.
And the wealthy
I thought VAT was always seen as a regressive tax as a greater percentage of poor earnings are by necessity consumable. Wealthy people have more discretionary spending power so they can if they so wish, cut back their spending and hence their payment of VAT. That being so, a VAT cut is a progressive action.
Given that we're told that the choice is between 'heating or eating' how does a VAT cut help in that situation ?
It would be a subsidy though for PBers who like to do a lot of expensive travelling and eating out.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
Plenty of Remain voters who voted for Major in 1992 or even 1997 are now voting LD or even Starmer Labour.
Plenty of Leave voters who voted for Kinnock in 1992 and Blair in 1997 voted for Boris' Tories in 2019 and some are still doing so.
Some Cameron voters from 2015 are also now voting LD or Starmer Labour while most UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting for Boris' Tories.
Such was the realignment of Brexit
It is nothing to do with Brexit now, it is to do with decency. You are obsessed with Brexit, even though you didn't vote for it. I would be quite happy voting for a Tory PM who was in favour of Brexit, I really couldn't care less. I won't vote Tory while Johnson is in power, not because he was in favour of Brexit (almost certainly a convenient lie) but because he is a dishonest cnut and unfit for office. You would vote Tory even if he invaded a peaceful country and claimed it needed de-nazification.
On a different topic, we're looking at some epoch-making Northern Irish Assembly election results, with a nationalist party likely to top the polls for the first time following the collapse in the DUP vote. The DUP seems to be losing votes to both the centre and to the more extreme TUV.
However, looking at the polling at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election#Opinion_polls , I note there's this big difference in the TUV's results. Polling by LucidTalk for the Belfast Telegraph finds the TUV around 9-14%, but polling for The Irish News finds them around 5-6%. That's a big difference. You don't see these big differences for the other parties' polling.
So, what's up? How well is the TUV doing?
It's really hard to predict how the TUV will do and where they will win seats. I would have thought they will struggle outside North Antrim and East Antrim but who knows? Isn't the problem that TUV is seen as a one man band?
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Thatcherite. Assuming that war was won I have moderated my position (or maybe just moved to the centre as I get older). I was quite happy with the coalition. At one time I would have called myself a Yellow Book LibDem but the social democrats seem to be in the ascendancy now. Will probably vote LibDem or Labour next time round as this government is pretty dysfunctional. I often vote LibDem in local elections as I try to vote on local issues.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
Everyone knows that the Social Democrats were the ones really to blame for folk voting Adolf cos the Reds were so evil.
All green (finally!) on French presidential election, assuming the final winner is one of Macron, Le Pen, Melenchon or Zemmour or Pecresse, so I think that's pretty safe.
Still cocked up by backing Le Pen long instead of laying Zemmour when he was having his moment early on, but it's all worked out ok in the end. My best/luckiest move was backing Pecresse when she started her rise and getting lucky trading out at her peak, more or less - that's my biggest profit unless Zemmour or Melenchon sneak into the final two.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Thatcherite. Assuming that war was won I have moderated my position (or maybe just moved to the centre as I get older). I was quite happy with the coalition. At one time I would have called myself a Yellow Book LibDem but the social democrats seem to be in the ascendancy now. Will probably vote LibDem or Labour next time round as this government is pretty dysfunctional. I often vote LibDem in local elections as I try to vote on local issues.
Actually the Orange Bookers are now back in the ascendancy in the LDs.
Ed Davey was an Orange Booker after all and in Cameron's coalition government, unlike Boris.
Davey is also the most fiscally conservative LD leader since Clegg
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Tory activist with similar political views (I guess) to @Stuartinromford . Until the lying piece of incompetent crap that is currently Tory leader and PM is removed I will be lending my vote to the LDs
That's the funny thing.
Demographically, in terms of the sort of society I want, I really ought to do the same... But I can't being myself to do so.
And some of it is deeply personal- it would make some of my ancestors turn in their grave, and some of my activism was against the worst sort of Liberal Streetfighter. And in Romford, there's not much point.
But even without those factors, somehow lending votes to Labour feels more comfortable than to Liberal.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
Because the tax increase hits the poorest hardest. So we need to make a cut to restore money in people's pockets which they can spend in the economy. Put UC up as well - unlike tax cuts for the wealthy every pound given at the bottom of the economy gets spent, which means jobs which means taxes.
Davey has made a big mistake in suggesting a vat cut at 18 billion he actually quoted, handing huge sums to the better off
When money is tight it has to be targeted to the poorest which Rishi failed to address
I've just pointed out that a VAT cut DOES target the poorer.
And the wealthy
But not to the same percentage. And you follow that up with an increase in income taxt etc at highher levels.
Davey did not say that though
Fair enough, thanks - I hadn't heard him. But the VAT cut would be a good start, and he'll be saving the other tax for another day.
I feel that my paucity of sleep may contribute to an excess of grumpiness by me on here so I shall exit stage left, hopefully not pursued by a bear.
After the chaos in A&E last night I'm not in a good mood with Boris Johnson and co. though to be fair I wasn't exactly their biggest fan beforehand. The NHS is in such a terrible state. Because people can't get GP appointments they attend A&E for things like basic wound dressings. Was I one of those? Apparently not according to the emergency doctor who spoke to me. But the situation is just complete chaos.
I think back 30 years, 20 years, 10 years ... how was Britain then compared to now?
Scores out of 100 on all things of well-being:
1992 70 (pre Black Wednesday)
2002 75 (post 9/11 otherwise higher)
2012 75 (The coalition. Bliss.)
2022 2 (and I think that's being generous)
The country is shit
Right I'm dragging my tired wounded body back to bed. Apologies for incoherence. Some will doubtless say that it's no different from normal
The country is not, as you put it, 'shit'. There is a great deal to take pride of in this country, our people, and its place in the world. That does not mean we are immune to criticism, or that we are perfect. Just that we are facing severe problems in Covid, Brexit and the effects of the Ukraine war. Of these, Brexit is the most minor.
But Covid and the effects of the Ukraine war are common to a large number of countries in Europe and the world.
And hope you feel better soon.
When you come from the starting position that Heathener posts from behind a blacklisted vpn with shall we say “an agenda”, it’s quite interesting reading their posts. Little needling away to see what works at causing dissent. Easy to imagine a white board of buzz topics with “NHS” circled. A flow arrow pointing into it with “create sympathy first” written in Cyrillic. Perhaps I am too cynical…
Yeah yeah yeah.
In one way I don't mind you keeping this up even though it's insulting. The reason is that if enough tories stick their fingers in their ears like this then it helps the opposition parties' chances in 2024.
I've told you why I use a VPN and I think it's madness that everyone doesn't use one. 'Cookies'? That's a laugh. They are trackers and ever since Cambridge Analytica I would never ever ever ever use the internet without blocking all cookies and using a VPN.
I'm sorry you refuse to take that at face value but if you look at what I post about ... I mean really, truly, you are 'aving a larf if you seriously believe I'm a troll or a bot.
No troll could be this smart, nor so cute
Anyway, this will fall on deaf ears but I shall keep posting my reflections on life, the universe and everything and if you choose to refuse to pay any attention that's up to you.
x
Doesn't want to enable cookies but does use a clubcard. Lol.
Tesco make a small fortune selling Clubcard data via their subsidiary Dunhumby. They have created consumer profile types built from your personal data gathered in Clubcard to allow people like me to better target out shit so that you buy more of it.
Why? If that works I am just going to buy stuff I'd usually buy at Tesco, elsewhere, no? It makes sense if you are just a wine merchant and think you can sell wine snobs' details to purveyors of fine cheese, but if you sell everything....
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
Weren't you in Scotland at the time? Where a third option existed, to have a referendum for independence from Mr Johnson/Mr Corbyn and their successors? And it won there.
The Supreme Court could help the Democrats if they overturn Roe v Wade . The mid terms include many state legislature elections . So the message will be vote Democrat to save your abortion rights . This sort of wedge issue will be needed for the Dems to help their turnout .
They won't overturn it. They'll just eat away at the edges unti lnothing is left.
It's exactly what they did to the VRA. Shelby County invalidated section 5 with the bullshit justification that if there were any actual issues then a section 2 complaint could be brought. The court has recently invalidated section 2 in all but name. The VRA is all but completely struck from the law books but there is no big rallying "Corrupt Supreme Court overrules law" moment.
Republican justices definitely know what the term gaslighting means.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
No, I meant those with a possible chance of winning, which is why I used the word possible...
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
Or, more accurately, they vote to ban legal abortion. Illegal and unsafe abortions will continue.
Good point; while abortions will not be 'allowed' will the practice itself be illegal? In other words will a woman be prosecuted for seeking or actually having one?
Apparently it will be a felony with the punishment being up to 10 years imprisonment.
I'd be very interested to see the polling split between men/women - and particularly for women of childbearing age.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Tory activist with similar political views (I guess) to @Stuartinromford . Until the lying piece of incompetent crap that is currently Tory leader and PM is removed I will be lending my vote to the LDs
That's the funny thing.
Demographically, in terms of the sort of society I want, I really ought to do the same... But I can't being myself to do so.
And some of it is deeply personal- it would make some of my ancestors turn in their grave, and some of my activism was against the worst sort of Liberal Streetfighter. And in Romford, there's not much point.
But even without those factors, somehow lending votes to Labour feels more comfortable than to Liberal.
Odd.
Ah, that is where we are different then. I still feel very reluctant to vote Labour. As a teenager I knew a number of Labour supporters that one would now think of as Corbynites. They hated their own country and virtually everything I believe in. That said, I did vote Labour as one of the preferences in the Police Commissioner poll (I think); it seemed pretty strange. I couldn't do it at a GE.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
That 19% of lowest decile household income spent on VAT, makes no sense at all. It would require almost all spending to be fully VAT rated, when we know that rent, food, council tax are all exempt, and utility bills only charged at 5%.
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
The IFS report explains it thus:
However, looking at a snapshot of the patterns of spending, VAT paid and income in the population at any given moment is misleading, because incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed through borrowing and saving. Consider a student or a retiree: their current income is likely to be quite low but their lifetime earnings could be relatively high. The student may borrow to fund spending, whilst the retiree may be running down savings. Similarly, many people in the lowest income decile will be temporarily not in paid work and able to maintain relatively high spending in the short period they are out of the labour market. Because their spending is higher than their current income, these people will be paying a high fraction of their current income in VAT. Similarly, those with high current incomes tend to have high saving, and so appear to escape the tax, but they will face it when they come to spend the accumulated savings. Because of this ‘consumption smoothing’, expenditure is probably a better measure of living standards (and households’ perceptions of the level of spending they can sustain).
Ah okay, so they are saying that those in the bottom decile have expenditure significantly in excess of their income, because they are only in the bottom decile on a temporary basis due to unemployment or study.
So the first graph might as well be ignored, it’s the second one (VAT by expenditure) which is more useful, and shows that VAT is a slightly progressive rather than highly regressive tax.
Or, more accurately, they vote to ban legal abortion. Illegal and unsafe abortions will continue.
Good point; while abortions will not be 'allowed' will the practice itself be illegal? In other words will a woman be prosecuted for seeking or actually having one?
Apparently it will be a felony with the punishment being up to 10 years imprisonment.
That's not what the BBC article says:
The bill would criminalise performing an abortion in almost all cases, except where it could "save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency".
Medical professionals convicted under the laws face fines of up to $100,000 (£76,505) and 10 years in prison.
@Farooq re yesterday about schools (don't want the whole Sunak debate to be reprised but just one point).
I am saying that within the system of there being private schools Sunak's gift could be seen as enabling those less well off.
You are saying that you should throw the whole private school system out and any propagation of such a system in word or deed is damaging and to be criticised.
Hence of course we don't agree, as you noted. But my comments weren't of the "I wouldn't have started from here" kind. They were within the context of there being private schools and a Tory chancellor and party not having the remotest inclination to change that.
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
Weren't you in Scotland at the time? Where a third option existed, to have a referendum for independence from Mr Johnson/Mr Corbyn and their successors? And it won there.
Next time, probably.
My constituency is Conservative-SNP with the Lib Dems absolutely nowhere. As it stands right now I'm likely to put Lib Dem as my #1 in the council election* and vote SNP to get the useless sack of shit out at Westminster whenever the next election is.
I'm not decided on independence so I try to balance my Holyrood votes, last time out Lib Dem+Green. I wouldn't touch Alba even with gloves on.
*Though currently thinking about rewarding the SNP for the elimination of tax breaks on private schools which I didn't know about til yesterday. It's not a council issue but I feel strongly about it and I'm really happy it's happened. Yes, I'll vote in the council election on national issues. Sue me!
"Britain deserves better than this Conservative cost of living crisis."
Does suggest "Britain deserves a Labour cost of living crisis."
Utter lack of alternative ways to deal with it.
You've not watched the video, then? It is a clunky slogan though.
Morning, everybody. By no means as cold today.
The slogan strips down to 'Britain deserves better', though, and that could be quite potent.
Because one can't say, surely, and certainly from this side of the fence, that Bad Dog's government shows us in a good light.
Did Blair's government show us in a good light? So much ephemeral image fluff to strains of 'things can only get better', followed by a disastrous war and an economic crisis within ten years. Such a wasted opportunity.
The only major crisis Blair had to deal with was 9/11. Johnson, in just a handful of years, has had Covid and Ukraine to deal with. IMV (and I know you'll disagree): he hasn't done too badly on either, and very well in some respects.
Blair did not really have to deal with 9/11, and his response was probably counter-productive. Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense. We've followed the American lead on sanctions, and continued military cooperation that began under his predecessors. Afghanistan, well, least said, soonest mended. Covid and Brexit were the main crises Boris faced and is facing.
"Similarly, Boris has not really had to deal with the Ukrainian invasion in any real sense."
Wow. That seems rather disconnected with reality. Boris has been one of the strongest allies with Ukraine so far (as, to be fair, have the government since 2014/5).
Note how Russia seems keen to put the UK first amongst their enemies? That's why.
Russia thought Boris was their friend, that’s why.
Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing. Which, along with clinging to his job, is the only thing the clown is good at.
Yes, he thought the PM of the country that was actively training the military of the country he had attacked - and wanted to attack again - was a friend.
FFS. I know some people hate Boris, but sometimes hatred can lead to a certain amount of irrationality...
"Otherwise it’s mostly been posturing."
Again, this seems rather an odd comment. It's been far from posturing, given the limits of what we can actually do. Compare, say, to Germany or France...
The extent of Johnson's (and his party's) entanglement with Russian wealth is a slow burn story that will likely be running when the immediate military crisis is over. The Russians will have thought all that time grooming him might have been worth something; another misjudgement since the only reaction that would save his skin, at least in the short term, was to go over the top in the other direction.
Training the Ukranians was a decision taken by the Coalition, which I doubt the clown was even aware of until it came to matter.
Oh, come on. You are being ridiculous. Operation Orbital was extended in 2019 and expanded in 2020, well before this war. The idea Johnson knew nothing of it is a little ridiculous.
No it isn't. You forget, I've spent time with him both in public and private. His lack of awareness as to where he is, what he's supposed to be doing and the history and background to anything is closer to zero than in anyone I've ever met.
And you seem a rather impartial observer. Compare, say, with Nick's interactions with him, which seemed a lot fairer and nearer to the real Johnson (fnarr, fnarr).
(Jesus. People's irrational hatred of Johnson is turning me, someone who was criticising him before most on here, and who has never voted for him, into a defended of him!)
If it were just me, you might have a point.
But I invite you to review what a whole stack of people who've interacted with Johnson - professionally and personally - have said, from his schooldays onwards, and to notice his lack of friends and allies.
The only people who rate him are those who don't know him.
Yes, someone who lacks friends and allies managed to get himself elected to a number of positions, and became PM. He did that through lacking friends and allies, obviously ...
Many people in the 2000s were saying how friendly Blair and Brown were, yet we saw that was a lie even before Brown got power.
Again, I stress I don't think Johnson is a good PM. But neither do I think he's the venal, nasty and lazy one his haters on here make him out to be. He's a flawed individual, but then so was Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May.
Boris is singularly unsuited to this moment. We need someone able to deal with reality rather than spin lies.
Well, it's a real shame that Labour gave us the option of voting for an anti-Semite who called this war wrong.
If having Boris as PM is bad, then Labour need to accept some blame for putting up a far worse candidate at GE 2019.
Do you honestly think Corbyn, someone too spineless to say whether he's had the Covid vaccine, and who is utterly wrong on the Ukrainian war - would have handled the two crises better?
Gold plated whataboutery. If you voted for Boris you take the lions share for this nonsense. It was perfectly possible not to vote for either. My late father in law, a lifelong Tory, cast his last vote for the Lib Dems because he didn’t trust Boris.
Voting for neither was just washing your hands of the unpalatable decision between two inadequate candidates and leaving it to others.
Absolute horseshit. You don't get to push the blame onto those of us who actively opposed both.
I'm sorry if you don't like the reality that there was a choice at the last general election of exactly two possible Prime Ministers.
That's odd, I seem to remember more parties standing nationally than just those two. Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
Weren't you in Scotland at the time? Where a third option existed, to have a referendum for independence from Mr Johnson/Mr Corbyn and their successors? And it won there.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
In both cases, popular with the unrepresentative minority who run the parties.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
You were in the Tories? I wouldn't have guessed (genuinely).
Yes, but in a John Major / Ken Clarke sort of way. And that strand has gone from being in charge, to being an acceptable strand, to now...
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
I am also shocked. I think @hyufd may have a point re the views of the current Tory party. There are so many sensible ex Tory's here. Are you all homeless? My views don't seem very different to you all and I have always been happy as a LD, but I know from conversations that is not the case for many of you and the low LD poll ratings seem to support that.
I was a Thatcherite. Assuming that war was won I have moderated my position (or maybe just moved to the centre as I get older). I was quite happy with the coalition. At one time I would have called myself a Yellow Book LibDem but the social democrats seem to be in the ascendancy now. Will probably vote LibDem or Labour next time round as this government is pretty dysfunctional. I often vote LibDem in local elections as I try to vote on local issues.
Actually the Orange Bookers are now back in the ascendancy in the LDs.
Ed Davey was an Orange Booker after all and in Cameron's coalition government, unlike Boris.
Davey is also the most fiscally conservative LD leader since Clegg
Well I'll see what they come up with in their manifesto. I'm in the safest Tory seat in the country so it doesn't matter which opposition party I vote for. Indeed, if Alan stands again I might vote OMRLP as I did last time.
As it happens, I voted for Ed Davey back in 1997 when Blair got in, as I had decided the Tories were tired and borderline corrupt and it was time for a change.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
That 19% of lowest decile household income spent on VAT, makes no sense at all. It would require almost all spending to be fully VAT rated, when we know that rent, food, council tax are all exempt, and utility bills only charged at 5%.
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
The IFS report explains it thus:
However, looking at a snapshot of the patterns of spending, VAT paid and income in the population at any given moment is misleading, because incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed through borrowing and saving. Consider a student or a retiree: their current income is likely to be quite low but their lifetime earnings could be relatively high. The student may borrow to fund spending, whilst the retiree may be running down savings. Similarly, many people in the lowest income decile will be temporarily not in paid work and able to maintain relatively high spending in the short period they are out of the labour market. Because their spending is higher than their current income, these people will be paying a high fraction of their current income in VAT. Similarly, those with high current incomes tend to have high saving, and so appear to escape the tax, but they will face it when they come to spend the accumulated savings. Because of this ‘consumption smoothing’, expenditure is probably a better measure of living standards (and households’ perceptions of the level of spending they can sustain).
Ah okay, so they are saying that those in the bottom decile have expenditure significantly in excess of their income, because they are only in the bottom decile on a temporary basis due to unemployment or study.
So the first graph might as well be ignored, it’s the second one (VAT by expenditure) which is more useful, and shows that VAT is a slightly progressive rather than highly regressive tax.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Maybe that quote should be changed to lies, damned lies and Boris Johnson?
@Farooq re yesterday about schools (don't want the whole Sunak debate to be reprised but just one point).
I am saying that within the system of there being private schools Sunak's gift could be seen as enabling those less well off.
You are saying that you should throw the whole private school system out and any propagation of such a system in word or deed is damaging and to be criticised.
Hence of course we don't agree, as you noted. But my comments weren't of the "I wouldn't have started from here" kind. They were within the context of there being private schools and a Tory chancellor and party not having the remotest inclination to change that.
Is all.
I get your position and you expressed it well enough. We don't agree but maybe some day we will.
The stupidity is most Americans are opposed to abortion bans. It's a populist measure that isn't actually popular.
cf and more ridiculously, onshore wind generation in England
Not in the South though.
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
I don't know Oklahoma specifically, but all-America polls have support for outright bans on abortion at less than 20%. It's very much a minority position. You can be stated pro-Life and still allow controlled abortion.
Ed Dave arguing for tax cuts and increased public spending.
Or, as it might also be described, higher inflation.
Good morning
Listening to him this morning he is suggesting vat is cut to 17.5% and he admitted it would cost a mere 18 billion
It does seem the opposition have completely blanked out the cost of covid and how giving a vat cut to the wealthy is progressive
I am a stern critic of Rishi since his ill fated budget but this vat cut is simply not an answer
Targeted help to those most in need should be the desire of all politicians in this crisis
Pesonally I find it morally disgusting that so many are arguing for tax cuts at a time of huge pressures on the State to the benefit of the better off. Tax cuts can be useful for a stimulus for growth at times but our economy is still growing strongly as it rebounds from Covid restrictions. It really doesn't need a further boost when inflation is already out of control and we have pretty much full employment.
And those with the broadest shoulders, as that well known socialist, George Osborne, used to say, need to step up. How anyone can prioritise tax cuts over, for example, a rerating of UC at the present time is simply beyond me. Ed Davey should be ashamed of himself.
On a technical point: is a VAT cut actually regressive? AIUI the poor pay quite substantially more VAT as a percentage of their income than the wealthy do. So it's not obvious to me that Mr Davey should be criticised on that point, so long as the tax income is regained elsewhere.
Yes absolutely. VAT affects the poorest most (paying 20p extra for a £1 good affects the poorer far more, and is a larger proportion of their wealth than it is for the wealthy).
But the poor spend a far greater amount of their income on food which is zero rated
I would instinctively agree that the poorest spend little of their money on VAT, apart from petrol and discretionary purchases such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Do we have any actual data of VAT paid by income decile?
It's very difficult to find such data.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
That 19% of lowest decile household income spent on VAT, makes no sense at all. It would require almost all spending to be fully VAT rated, when we know that rent, food, council tax are all exempt, and utility bills only charged at 5%.
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
The IFS report explains it thus:
However, looking at a snapshot of the patterns of spending, VAT paid and income in the population at any given moment is misleading, because incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed through borrowing and saving. Consider a student or a retiree: their current income is likely to be quite low but their lifetime earnings could be relatively high. The student may borrow to fund spending, whilst the retiree may be running down savings. Similarly, many people in the lowest income decile will be temporarily not in paid work and able to maintain relatively high spending in the short period they are out of the labour market. Because their spending is higher than their current income, these people will be paying a high fraction of their current income in VAT. Similarly, those with high current incomes tend to have high saving, and so appear to escape the tax, but they will face it when they come to spend the accumulated savings. Because of this ‘consumption smoothing’, expenditure is probably a better measure of living standards (and households’ perceptions of the level of spending they can sustain).
Ah okay, so they are saying that those in the bottom decile have expenditure significantly in excess of their income, because they are only in the bottom decile on a temporary basis due to unemployment or study.
So the first graph might as well be ignored, it’s the second one (VAT by expenditure) which is more useful, and shows that VAT is a slightly progressive rather than highly regressive tax.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
It does ignore the fact that some people will be in the bottom decile because they are long-term unemployed, or too ill to work.
Comments
How the hell did that happen? I have tried to be so careful in recent weeks.
Ah, well - back to my solitary life with only sheep and lambs for company.
On the plus side I sound like Marlene Dietrich when speaking so I hope they appreciate my croaky rendition of Lili Marlene.
I've got no plans to rejoin the Conservatives any time soon- I just can't being myself to give them money or time or anything... But when too many people (reasonably) do that, it leaves parties in the hands of people we don't really want to have that power.
https://mobile.twitter.com/IanRicksecker/status/1478611650760437765
A fair bit of the thread looks like clear exaggeration, but there's too much in it to rebut point-by-point.
Does anyone have a link to a level-headed assessment of long Covid risks from a trustworthy source?
It is true that 54% of Americans overall think abortion should be mostly legal but in the South 52% still think abortion should be mostly illegal. Oklahoma is a southern state and was of course a Trump and GOP voting state even in 2020
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-nation-s-demographic-divides-abortion-n1278210
It doesn't change my overall opinion of him, but I cannot very well ignore that he is not isolated or uninfluential in this crisis. It is not credible he gets praise from someone in the know for doing nothing.
Everything Democrat is being labelled as pedophile. Given the level of messaging discipline of the GOP and how that feeds into people's twitter feeds I'm giving it 3 months before posters on here are parroting "legitimate concerns"
Despite the dogmatic hotheads at both ends, truly a debate is to be had, and this is an issue where morality can't be put on one side. This is proved by the unease from every sort of feminist about selective sex abortion, ie aborting girls because they are girls. At that point most feminists cease wanting abortion on demand, though they find it hard to say so.
Feel like we're being gaslit here.
Some of that which was discussed was, to Western ears, chilling.
As a result of the financial crash VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15% and then subsequently increased to 20%.
There is some data from around 2008/2011 relating to the impact of these movements on different elements of the population.
The campaigning group Tax Research UK produced a paper looking at the question of whether VAT was progressive or regressive.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/VATRegressive.pdf
They discuss a graph produced by the IFS
Which comes from this document from 2009
https://ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2009/09chap10.pdf
Suggests a different view based on household expenditure.
This is quite an amazing story that I had not heard before, and one that shows how ordinary people can sometimes show bravery and do the right thing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-60841291
Basically, if the Conservatives want to align themselves on a social values axis, and on the conservative-authoritarian side of that, then we're done. I'm sure they're not that bothered and will be very happy with their new friends.
Plus all its Senators, its US representatives, its governor and a majority of its state legislature are GOP too
A windfall tax would be on the North Sea ringfenced profits of the oil companies (a lot of the most profitable of which are actually foreign owned, sometimes obscure businesses not BP and Shell). So regardless of the global profits of these companies, what matters is what they are making in the North Sea. It would raise a reasonable amount of money, and some of the biggest payers would be PE backed / Chinese owned businesses.
The trouble is politicians conflate the global consolidated profits published by the oil majors with the North Sea ring-fence profits, which in some cases are negative (e.g. if they are spending a lot of money on decommissioning).
19% spent on VATable purchases, rather than actually spent on VAT, might make a little more sense.
Even if he does get one by issuing it now whilst the recess is on helps Johnson and of course he apparently was given the wrong information and didn’t realize he was at a party !
However, looking at the polling at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election#Opinion_polls , I note there's this big difference in the TUV's results. Polling by LucidTalk for the Belfast Telegraph finds the TUV around 9-14%, but polling for The Irish News finds them around 5-6%. That's a big difference. You don't see these big differences for the other parties' polling.
So, what's up? How well is the TUV doing?
Albeit most TUV transfers will go DUP
It's exactly what they did to the VRA. Shelby County invalidated section 5 with the bullshit justification that if there were any actual issues then a section 2 complaint could be brought. The court has recently invalidated section 2 in all but name. The VRA is all but completely struck from the law books but there is no big rallying "Corrupt Supreme Court overrules law" moment.
Plenty of Leave voters who voted for Kinnock in 1992 and Blair in 1997 voted for Boris' Tories in 2019 and some are still doing so.
Some Cameron voters from 2015 are also now voting LD or Starmer Labour while most UKIP voters from 2015 are now voting for Boris' Tories.
Such was the realignment of Brexit
India's biggest tie to Russia is perhaps its energy dependence. Looking ahead, its rapidly growing domestic arms industry, together with numerous possible alternate suppliers, ought to make it independent of Russia for weapons.
Pakistan has distanced itself from the US and leant towards Russia/China. India ought to move in the opposite direction.
However, looking at a snapshot of the patterns of spending, VAT paid and income in the population at any given moment is misleading, because incomes are volatile and spending can be smoothed through borrowing and saving. Consider a student or a retiree: their current income is likely to be quite low but their lifetime earnings could be relatively high. The student may borrow to fund spending, whilst the retiree may be running down savings. Similarly, many people in the lowest income decile will be temporarily not in paid work and able to maintain relatively high spending in the short period they are out of the labour market. Because their spending is higher than their current income, these people will be paying a high fraction of their current income in VAT. Similarly, those with high current incomes tend to have high saving, and so appear to escape the tax, but they will face it when they come to spend the accumulated savings. Because of this ‘consumption smoothing’, expenditure is probably a better measure of living standards
(and households’ perceptions of the level of spending they can sustain).
It would be a subsidy though for PBers who like to do a lot of expensive travelling and eating out.
Still cocked up by backing Le Pen long instead of laying Zemmour when he was having his moment early on, but it's all worked out ok in the end. My best/luckiest move was backing Pecresse when she started her rise and getting lucky trading out at her peak, more or less - that's my biggest profit unless Zemmour or Melenchon sneak into the final two.
Ed Davey was an Orange Booker after all and in Cameron's coalition government, unlike Boris.
Davey is also the most fiscally conservative LD leader since Clegg
Demographically, in terms of the sort of society I want, I really ought to do the same... But I can't being myself to do so.
And some of it is deeply personal- it would make some of my ancestors turn in their grave, and some of my activism was against the worst sort of Liberal Streetfighter. And in Romford, there's not much point.
But even without those factors, somehow lending votes to Labour feels more comfortable than to Liberal.
Odd.
Perhaps you mean just those with a realistic chance of winning? In which case you're still wrong, the Conservatives were very obviously going to win it.
So there was a choice of ONE, and I said no. And I was right.
While southern states like Alabama poll strongly against abortion, that is not the case for Oklahoma, which is fairly every split on the issue.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvDCzhbjYWs
As for where I put the blame? Primarily on to the Labour MPs who didn't understand their leadership election format and gave Corbyn the nominations in the first place.
I don't blame anyone for washing their hands of the choice, but to pretend you "opposed both" is risible.
So the first graph might as well be ignored, it’s the second one (VAT by expenditure) which is more useful, and shows that VAT is a slightly progressive rather than highly regressive tax.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The bill would criminalise performing an abortion in almost all cases, except where it could "save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency".
Medical professionals convicted under the laws face fines of up to $100,000 (£76,505) and 10 years in prison.
Nothing about criminalising having an abortion.
I am saying that within the system of there being private schools Sunak's gift could be seen as enabling those less well off.
You are saying that you should throw the whole private school system out and any propagation of such a system in word or deed is damaging and to be criticised.
Hence of course we don't agree, as you noted. But my comments weren't of the "I wouldn't have started from here" kind. They were within the context of there being private schools and a Tory chancellor and party not having the remotest inclination to change that.
Is all.
My constituency is Conservative-SNP with the Lib Dems absolutely nowhere. As it stands right now I'm likely to put Lib Dem as my #1 in the council election* and vote SNP to get the useless sack of shit out at Westminster whenever the next election is.
I'm not decided on independence so I try to balance my Holyrood votes, last time out Lib Dem+Green. I wouldn't touch Alba even with gloves on.
*Though currently thinking about rewarding the SNP for the elimination of tax breaks on private schools which I didn't know about til yesterday. It's not a council issue but I feel strongly about it and I'm really happy it's happened. Yes, I'll vote in the council election on national issues. Sue me!
As it happens, I voted for Ed Davey back in 1997 when Blair got in, as I had decided the Tories were tired and borderline corrupt and it was time for a change.