So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
To be pedantic, we didn't have universal suffrage in 1918.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
And also not necessarily reflecting the military reality. As the editorial says, Ukraine has driven Russia out of more than 40% of the land the latter occupied since the start of the conflict. The US is now openly saying that Russia has lost nearly 1,000 tanks, which would be considerably higher than Oryx's numbers and, if extrapolated, would suggest the Russians have lost c. 5K vehicles. And Ukraine is training up more troops, receiving more equipment etc while Russia's military capabilities continue to degrade.
The Oryx figures are (allowing for a small number of photo misidentifications) an absolute minimum, so the US estimate’s probably correct.
The next argument is likely to be over the Italian support for Putin’s latest gambit offering to ‘allow’ grain exports if sanctions are lifted.
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1529915762109992964 Yet again, the same pattern is repeated. Russia creates a problem and then generously offers to solve it. Some naive people call it de-escalation. Remarkable that Putin told it to Draghi.Italy might face waves of migrants via Mediterranean if there's hunger in Africa, Middle East
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
And also not necessarily reflecting the military reality. As the editorial says, Ukraine has driven Russia out of more than 40% of the land the latter occupied since the start of the conflict. The US is now openly saying that Russia has lost nearly 1,000 tanks, which would be considerably higher than Oryx's numbers and, if extrapolated, would suggest the Russians have lost c. 5K vehicles. And Ukraine is training up more troops, receiving more equipment etc while Russia's military capabilities continue to degrade.
It does sound pretty touch and go in the Donbas though. Finally the Russians have put together a competent attack, and that is worrying. The question is for how long can they sustain it?
For all the NATO promises, artillery is the king of the battlefield in a stationary war, and numbers there favour Russia.
If we are headed into a recession with demand aggregation collapsing as every one draws in their spending, then giving £400 to everyone who buys electricity will not sound so bonkers.
It's normally expressed as 'aggregate demand', but your coinage is more dynamic.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church on earth with the English monarch
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
I am sure Labour will give it a good go.
Unfortunately you are probably right. Weimar republic says hello.
Eh? We are not remotely the Weimar republic. Jeez...
If we are headed into a recession with demand aggregation collapsing as every one draws in their spending, then giving £400 to everyone who buys electricity will not sound so bonkers.
Yep. It's Keynesianism. Not the worst idea right now.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
To be pedantic, we didn't have universal suffrage in 1918.
We did for men and middle class women but if you want to only go from the time all women had the vote it applies even more
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
Either way the 3 Green MPs will back Labor so they pass the 76 threshold needed for government
The Australian Labor Party has never been particularly left-wing so having to rely on the Greens could have a significant effect on the type of administration it is. [For instance I was reading an article today that argued the Australian Labor Party was the first major Western party to embrace neo-liberalism in the 1980s under Bob Hawke].
It was but Albanese is more leftwing than Hawke and Keating and indeed the most leftwing Australian PM since Whitlam. If he relies on the Greens to govern, his government will be even more leftwing
Today I became a statistic. I have joined an NHS waiting list. Eighteen months in my case for a cataract operation.
Have you an option to go private?
Dunno, not complaining. Just bemused. You hear so much about waiting lists that it became a bit like joining an anonymous club.
It will vary from place to place. My dad has had both done in the last 6 months, private. As he said at 82 you value the time left rather than the money...
If it gets worse I'll look into that option.
I wouldn't regard waiting times given as bearing much relationship to reality. They are very lumpy at the moment, with a few long waiters from the beginning of the pandemic, but few referrals made in that period, so will nominally drop quickly, before leaping up as the catch up referrals come through. It is anyones guess. The private companies are hoovering up the straightforward cases and doing them quickly, mostly reasonably well, but won't touch anything that looks complicated. They don't want the hassle.
The combination that will almost certainly trigger a leadership election against Boris is if the Tories lose Tiverton by any margin and also lose Wakefield by more than 5,000 votes.
Either way the 3 Green MPs will back Labor so they pass the 76 threshold needed for government
The Australian Labor Party has never been particularly left-wing so having to rely on the Greens could have a significant effect on the type of administration it is. [For instance I was reading an article today that argued the Australian Labor Party was the first major Western party to embrace neo-liberalism in the 1980s under Bob Hawke].
It was but Albanese is more leftwing than Hawke and Keating and indeed the most leftwing Australian PM since Whitlam. If he relies on the Greens to govern, his government will be even more leftwing
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
I am sure Labour will give it a good go.
Unfortunately you are probably right. Weimar republic says hello.
Eh? We are not remotely the Weimar republic. Jeez...
It was a weak attempt at humorous exaggeration. I do think baking in big rises in government expenditure as opposed to one-off spikes is going to give us grief. We need an honest conversation and income tax rises is fairest way of getting more tax BUT there are objective limits to tax take & nasty consequences if deficit gets too high.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
And also not necessarily reflecting the military reality. As the editorial says, Ukraine has driven Russia out of more than 40% of the land the latter occupied since the start of the conflict. The US is now openly saying that Russia has lost nearly 1,000 tanks, which would be considerably higher than Oryx's numbers and, if extrapolated, would suggest the Russians have lost c. 5K vehicles. And Ukraine is training up more troops, receiving more equipment etc while Russia's military capabilities continue to degrade.
It does sound pretty touch and go in the Donbas though. Finally the Russians have put together a competent attack, and that is worrying. The question is for how long can they sustain it?
For all the NATO promises, artillery is the king of the battlefield in a stationary war, and numbers there favour Russia.
The Ukrainian reporting of the ongoing position seems notably honest, and quite prompt.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529847897705132032 … 🔹Situation in Luhansk Obl extremely difficult 🔹🇷🇺 advances but slowly because of fierce 🇺🇦 resistance 🔹No 🇷🇺troops on Bakhmut-Lysychansk road but it is within range of 🇷🇺 fire, using it is dangerous 🔹🇷🇺s fight on outskirts of Sievierodonetsk, shell it w/mortars…
Russians advancing in Borivske, Ukraine holds on in Zolote & Katerynivka. Russians retreat in Toshkivka. Lysychansk-Bakhmut road under Russian fire, evacuation & humanit.aid delivered otherwise
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
And you are an English Nationalist, NOT a Conservative.
The combination that will almost certainly trigger a leadership election against Boris is if the Tories lose Tiverton by any margin and also lose Wakefield by more than 5,000 votes.
Yes. Although I reckon 5k is a pretty high bar. I think 5% would be considered a lot.
And there's a problem in the US. Many Republicans are concerned that any kind of regulation is the thin end of the wedge that ends with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That's understandable.
But it also leads to a situation where even the most modest of proposals is blocked.
It's not understandable. It is the same delusional paranoia that had 17th Century New England convinced the British government was, at any moment, going to rejoin with the Papacy are enforce Catholicism as the state religion.
17th century? There is one person on PB who argued this year something rather like that, in justification for keeping the C of E as the privileged State Church (as if England was a state, but never mind).
Well that was why it was created in the first place, to replace the Pope as head of the English Church with the English monarch
I couldn't care a baboon's bum whiskers what the reason was in 1530 whe we are discussing what the reason for keeping the Establishment of the C of E might be right now, in 2022. You know, maintaining the UK as a primitive barely-out-of-mediaeval theocracy, that sort of stuff.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, what business is it of yours whether the Church of England remains the English established church? The same reasoning applies now as in 1530.
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
And you are an English Nationalist, NOT a Conservative.
In 1530 the Act of Union was still 177 years away and Scotland still even had its own separate monarch
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
The combination that will almost certainly trigger a leadership election against Boris is if the Tories lose Tiverton by any margin and also lose Wakefield by more than 5,000 votes.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
It might more accurately be termed the Laffer Syndrome.
The combination that will almost certainly trigger a leadership election against Boris is if the Tories lose Tiverton by any margin and also lose Wakefield by more than 5,000 votes.
I guess that means summer recess will be 24th June. Don't give them time to organize.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
It's art, not science. Does revenue rise with a tax increase? If yes then you've undercooked it, likely Tory woe. If it falls then you've overcooked it, likely Labour woe.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
It's possible that if they introduce some major tax reform, they would also be able to increase the tax take at the same time.
Suppose they were to replace council tax with a house value tax - they could probably cut the majority of people's tax bills and still raise more tax overall. Or they could levy National Insurance on pensioner's incomes at the same time as cutting the rates, and thereby cut NI for most taxpayers while still increasing the overall tax take.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
It's art, not science. Does revenue rise with a tax increase? If yes then you've undercooked it, likely Tory woe. If it falls then you've overcooked it, likely Labour woe.
If we are headed into a recession with demand aggregation collapsing as every one draws in their spending, then giving £400 to everyone who buys electricity will not sound so bonkers.
On the other hand, simply handing out money when inflation heads over 10% and towards 15% might not look so clever.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
It's art, not science. Does revenue rise with a tax increase? If yes then you've undercooked it, likely Tory woe. If it falls then you've overcooked it, likely Labour woe.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
That isn't how it works.
It is, no government since a majority of the population of the UK got the vote has ever won a 5th consecutive general election.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
That isn't how it works.
It is, no government since a majority of the population of the UK got the vote has ever won a 5th consecutive general election.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
You’re a bit silly spinning that line. Another silly line would be we are only 7 years into Tory government. Amazing to think how much mess they’ve packed into such a short time.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
That isn't how it works.
It is, no government since a majority of the population of the UK got the vote has ever won a 5th consecutive general election.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
The Conservatives may have had power through four terms, but they did not win 4 elections. 2010 was a formal coalition, 2017 an informal one. Both saw the Conservatives short of a majority.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
It's art, not science. Does revenue rise with a tax increase? If yes then you've undercooked it, likely Tory woe. If it falls then you've overcooked it, likely Labour woe.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
That isn't how it works.
It is, no government since a majority of the population of the UK got the vote has ever won a 5th consecutive general election.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
The Conservatives may have had power through four terms, but they did not win 4 elections. 2010 was a formal coalition, 2017 an informal one. Both saw the Conservatives short of a majority.
Didn’t hold them back making a pigs ear of it in either case.
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised. Not at all difficult to "prove" analytically. Indeed it is almost elementary. Laffer did it on a napkin for a politician who was paying for his lunch. In comparison the 'absolute square root of f* all' is a much more slippery concept.
Indeed. But the question of where exactly it is has proved to be fiendishly.tricky.
It's art, not science. Does revenue rise with a tax increase? If yes then you've undercooked it, likely Tory woe. If it falls then you've overcooked it, likely Labour woe.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
That isn't how it works.
It is, no government since a majority of the population of the UK got the vote has ever won a 5th consecutive general election.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
The Conservatives may have had power through four terms, but they did not win 4 elections. 2010 was a formal coalition, 2017 an informal one. Both saw the Conservatives short of a majority.
They won most seats in 2010 and 2017 and formed the government so effectively did win, even without a majority.
No party has won most seats for 5 general elections in a row either since universal suffrage
Serious point: if Labour win the next election they won't be able to increase public expenditure. We are fast approaching the outer limits of a manageable deficit. Run on pound, inflation, credit downgrading if a typical labour manifesto is added to Tory largesse.
Wealth tax, higher income tax, etc etc etc....
Won't work. Higher income tax is already likely to be needed with Tory expenditure plans. Laferr curve says hello.
Laffer curve says nothing; the absolute square root of f*ck all. No one has ever proved or quantified any element of it.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
Let's put it this way. Tax revenue is the product of the tax base and the tax rate. But the tax base is a monotonically decreasing function of the tax rate. So as the tax rate rises the elasticity of revenue wrt the tax base falls from infinite when the tax rate is zero to zero when the tax rate is so high that the tax base has disappeared. At some point in the interval between those extremes the elasticity is equal to (minus) one, and at that point tax revenue is maximised…
There is no ‘point’ - that’s a fallacy. And what does ‘elasticity’ of revenue measure ? It depends on a myriad things, and varies between societies, and over time within societies.
And to further quibble, 100% tax rates - confiscation - don’t raise zero revenue.
It’s not maths, just a broad description of one general effect among many, which has something to do with tax take.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
So even after the Gray report Labour fails to post a lead of 10% or more and the poll was taken before the extra funds announced to help households with energy bills today
Wasn't 31% the circa 1997 Con number? Remind me, was that a good number?
RefUK still polling 3%, most of that will go back to the Conservatives and in some final polls like Mori the Tories polled under 31% in 1997.
Blair was up to 20 points ahead in many pre 1997 polls eg Gallup, not just 9 points ahead even after a dreadful few days for the PM and party. I expect the extra funds for households to help with energy bills announced after this poll will also make a difference.
At the 2010 general election Labour only got 29% 13 years into government, the Tories are now already 12 years into government
Under FPTP your raw Party score isn't the most important metric. 1997 Tories 31%. Labour majority of 179. 2010 Labour 29%. Hung Parliament. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Labour still polling about 3% less than 1997 and after boundary changes still not getting a majority alone a landslide.
Don't forget 1997 only happened after Major won a general election after more than 10 years of his party in power, the only PM in the last 100 years to do so.
The odds were always Labour would win the next general election after the Tories 2019 win, however they are still far from sealing it
Since when were Labour favourites to win the next GE?
Since the day after the Tories won a 4th consecutive general election in 2019 on historical precedence
That isn't how it works.
It is, no governing party has won a 5th consecutive general election since universal suffrage in 1918
Although let's not forget that for most of that time they did not have a majority (7 out of 12 years).
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
I had lunch with a Russian contact today. 2m have left; 18month wait for Israeli visas due to weight of applications; IT systems collapsing as no one left to maintain; “informal” conscription already happening; assumption there is likely to be a military coup at some point but that will be worse than Putin
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Perhaps, so if we cannot or will not get stuck in ourselves, for good reasons, let's at the least not hasten his victory. Despite certain realists it seems a strong case that making his win cost more is both of moral and practical benefit.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.
More from that New York Times article on the M777 howitzers the US is supplying Ukraine: "They fire three miles farther than the most common artillery system used bu the Russian Army in the Ukraine war, the Msta-S self-propelled howitzer -- and ten miles farther if shooting a precision, GPS-guided projectile."
About a dozen are already in action, and more will be, soon. "The bottleneck is training."
Since the howitzers use NATO ammunition, there is unlikely to be a shortage of shells, any time soon.
The French have promised to send some of their Caesar truck-mounted howitzers, which can "shoot and scoot". Unfortunately, the training for these takes longer than the training for the M777s, months, perhaps, rather than weeks.
Overall, I would say the tone of the article is cautiously optimistic.
(Caveats: I am no expert on artillery, and I am unfamiliar with the two reporters who wrote the article: Andrew E. Kramer adn Maria Varennikova.)
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
I had lunch with a Russian contact today. 2m have left; 18month wait for Israeli visas due to weight of applications; IT systems collapsing as no one left to maintain; “informal” conscription already happening; assumption there is likely to be a military coup at some point but that will be worse than Putin
Putin doesn't win the war. Even if, by some use of strength in depth (aka killing 100Ks of conscripts) he takes Ukr, then the "war" will move to a new agenda.
This only ends when the West have defeated him and he is no longer in power.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
I had lunch with a Russian contact today. 2m have left; 18month wait for Israeli visas due to weight of applications; IT systems collapsing as no one left to maintain; “informal” conscription already happening; assumption there is likely to be a military coup at some point but that will be worse than Putin
A military without troops or kit undertaking a coup is perhaps not the feared beast it once was.
The alternative was civil disorder as Martin Lewis has been saying. That may still happen if inflation, particularly food thanks to Mad Vlad, continues to surge.
Very messy set of front pages though.
My first gut feel was I liked what Rishi has done. Economists seem to feel it is both a lot of money and nicely targeted. But green lobby seem to be going ballistic about a sweetener to energy producers on drilling? And whilst praising the package all economists flagged up they don’t share Sunak’s stated confidence this is a one off - they fear the problems persists long enough to stop this being a one off. Is that why the windfall tax isn’t set up as a one off with a 3 year clause - Rishi saying one off but planning for another raid? Personally I’m not convinced the package isn’t inflationary - fight a slump and recession with Keynesian “splurges” as the mail called it, but you don’t fight inflation with a splurge. I’ll give you an example, some people getting hand out don’t need it, Rishi has effectively handed them some Krug and Belgium chocolates. There is a further way it can cost Sunak votes, and that’s where you draw the line, some people very nearly almost as hard up as those getting the largess won’t be getting the largess. .
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
What is "wins"?
The answer is, though, that we maintain sanctions and the US (unless Trump is reelected) maintains sanctions. I would hope the EU will keep its backbone, but the reality is that there is one country (Hungary) who actively supports Russia, and a further couple who are desperate to avoid recessions. (And if the Italian government loses this year, it will end up with an even more pro-Russian party in power.)
The UK and the US, though, matter. Strong sanctions from the two would have a serious negative impact on Russia's economy and ability to extract hydrocarbons.
And even if Russia wins, it will have successfully reinvigorated NATO, and ensured that Europe diversifies its energy import mix.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
The French resistance, I'm afraid, was a bit of a myth. I'd go for Iraq or Afghanistan.
Robert Reich @RBReich · 1h Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
I think that would lead to a landslide victory for the Republicans, because the map is tilted in their direction already. 30 Republican gains is far from impossible.
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.
Even if the coward alliance buckles, you still have the US, UK and Poland shipping in weapons. And Putin is going to try to hold the land bridge to Crimea too. That will be too many Ukrainians to pacify.
Athwal, Jas Labour Party 2349 Elected Khan, Tanweer Akhtar Labour Party 2148 Elected Solanki, Vanisha Surendra Labour Party 2125 Elected ............................................................................................................................ Corbin, Carol Conservative Party Candidate 525 Begum, Maria Conservative Party Candidate 470 Khushi Pasha, Masood Conservative Party Candidate 360 Khanam, Sufia Liberal Democrats 229 Hussain, Majad Independent Network 218
"The first thing I would do is to expand the residency system so that more doctors can become residents after medical school,” Orr told me. “This might be the key bottleneck. The medical schools say they can’t easily expand, because there aren’t enough residency slots for their graduates to fill. But there aren’t enough residency slots because Washington has purposefully limited federal residency financing.” The arithmetic is simple: More funding means more residents; more residents allows medical schools to grow; more medical students today means more doctors in a decade."
More or less the same problem here, with the numbers in Specialist training in my speciality unchanged in 15 years, and 15 years ago was a reduction. The numbers are controlled by HEE as part of the DoH, not by doctors bodies.
Athwal, Jas Labour Party 2349 Elected Khan, Tanweer Akhtar Labour Party 2148 Elected Solanki, Vanisha Surendra Labour Party 2125 Elected ............................................................................................................................ Corbin, Carol Conservative Party Candidate 525 Begum, Maria Conservative Party Candidate 470 Khushi Pasha, Masood Conservative Party Candidate 360 Khanam, Sufia Liberal Democrats 229 Hussain, Majad Independent Network 218
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.
Even if the coward alliance buckles, you still have the US, UK and Poland shipping in weapons. And Putin is going to try to hold the land bridge to Crimea too. That will be too many Ukrainians to pacify.
You are spot on Aslan, taking it one thing, holding it another. That Putin take Donbas isn’t certain the slow speed it going and the expense involved, but even if did, they are sitting ducks at pheasant shoot to chaos Ukraine counter offensive has coming at them.
Any Boris fans left on this forum? Take it from bluff Yorkshire girl to know a bottom line.
2019 was a crazy political year in UK, what with threat of a Corbyn government (Tbf the manifesto they released themselves screamed we are not ready for government) and the raw Brexit goose still flapping around needing to be cooked. There were two key elections in quick succession - to the Tory Crown, to Downing Street - and due diligence was not carried out in either.
Amongst all the hyper active newspapers on Partygate, the Sun called this one right on their Gray release front page, this mess was all your own creating Prime Minister, now turn the page put it in the past and get down to the providing the governing and leadership the people need.
The bottom line is, this constant swirl of chaos and confusion and entitlement around Boris isn’t disappearing overnight, it’s how he has lived his entire life. Rather like old man river Trump only had the one way of rolling along, same with Boris.
The alternative was civil disorder as Martin Lewis has been saying. That may still happen if inflation, particularly food thanks to Mad Vlad, continues to surge.
Very messy set of front pages though.
My first gut feel was I liked what Rishi has done. Economists seem to feel it is both a lot of money and nicely targeted. But green lobby seem to be going ballistic about a sweetener to energy producers on drilling? And whilst praising the package all economists flagged up they don’t share Sunak’s stated confidence this is a one off - they fear the problems persists long enough to stop this being a one off. Is that why the windfall tax isn’t set up as a one off with a 3 year clause - Rishi saying one off but planning for another raid? Personally I’m not convinced the package isn’t inflationary - fight a slump and recession with Keynesian “splurges” as the mail called it, but you don’t fight inflation with a splurge. I’ll give you an example, some people getting hand out don’t need it, Rishi has effectively handed them some Krug and Belgium chocolates. There is a further way it can cost Sunak votes, and that’s where you draw the line, some people very nearly almost as hard up as those getting the largess won’t be getting the largess. .
Genuine Question. Did Sunak hand himself 400 quid?
Athwal, Jas Labour Party 2349 Elected Khan, Tanweer Akhtar Labour Party 2148 Elected Solanki, Vanisha Surendra Labour Party 2125 Elected ............................................................................................................................ Corbin, Carol Conservative Party Candidate 525 Begum, Maria Conservative Party Candidate 470 Khushi Pasha, Masood Conservative Party Candidate 360 Khanam, Sufia Liberal Democrats 229 Hussain, Majad Independent Network 218
Election in solid Labour Ward, nothing to see here, show me a marginal.
It is vaguely interesting in that Jas Athwal would almost certainly now be the Labour MP for Ilford South had it not been for an ill-timed suspension that meant Corbynista Sam Tarry stood instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jas_Athwal
Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.
The Second Amendment is brief and its purpose is clear, as the quote above illustrates.
It does NOT mean anybody can arm themselves anywhere and anyhow they like. You cannot park a tank on your front lawn or install a thermonuclear device in your garden shed because the State reserves the right to designate what access you have to weaponry.
The US State allows a remarkably wide and free access and one consequence is repeated massacres of the kind we saw recently in Texas. But it's their country, not ours. If they choose to endure that kind of thing rather than impose some sensible gun-control measures it's their business, not ours. If we don't like it, we just stay away.
The alternative was civil disorder as Martin Lewis has been saying. That may still happen if inflation, particularly food thanks to Mad Vlad, continues to surge.
Very messy set of front pages though.
My first gut feel was I liked what Rishi has done. Economists seem to feel it is both a lot of money and nicely targeted. But green lobby seem to be going ballistic about a sweetener to energy producers on drilling? And whilst praising the package all economists flagged up they don’t share Sunak’s stated confidence this is a one off - they fear the problems persists long enough to stop this being a one off. Is that why the windfall tax isn’t set up as a one off with a 3 year clause - Rishi saying one off but planning for another raid? Personally I’m not convinced the package isn’t inflationary - fight a slump and recession with Keynesian “splurges” as the mail called it, but you don’t fight inflation with a splurge. I’ll give you an example, some people getting hand out don’t need it, Rishi has effectively handed them some Krug and Belgium chocolates. There is a further way it can cost Sunak votes, and that’s where you draw the line, some people very nearly almost as hard up as those getting the largess won’t be getting the largess. .
Genuine Question. Did Sunak hand himself 400 quid?
Better than that, Rishi handed himself £400 for each home, and has already said he will give it to charity. Probably most MPs have more than one home.
Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…
Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.
Never really got why a right to bear arms, even if it did mean you can pretty much buy what you like, extended to things like open carry or to bear them anywhere you please, which some extend it to as a related issue.
The Second Amendment is brief and its purpose is clear, as the quote above illustrates.
It does NOT mean anybody can arm themselves anywhere and anyhow they like. You cannot park a tank on your front lawn or install a thermonuclear device in your garden shed because the State reserves the right to designate what access you have to weaponry.
The US State allows a remarkably wide and free access and one consequence is repeated massacres of the kind we saw recently in Texas. But it's their country, not ours. If they choose to endure that kind of thing rather than impose some sensible gun-control measures it's their business, not ours. If we don't like it, we just stay away.
The state - and individual states - placed significant and varied constraints on the right to bear arms. They have been steadily dismantled by the Supreme Court in a manner which owes everything to ideology, and very little indeed to jurisprudence.
Labour has bought up all the advertising on the Conservative Home website - the Tory members’ online bible - over the next few days and this is what readers will see…
Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.
Conservative Home is at https://www.conservativehome.com/ and shows those Labour adverts. ConHome seems to have been removed from the the list of pb links, which retains some odd choices.
A questions about the next GE. Is a minority government feasible? Even in the short term?
Let's say CP wins most seats but no majority and no CP partnership with other parties is possible. Can CP decide to govern on a minority basis or would the fact that the LP COULD form a majority with other parties take precedent?
Secondly, I know that a minority government is unsustainable but if no party could get a coalition or other partnership with other parties could the CP say there must be another GE in three months and we will govern on minority basis until then?
"Neither a French president, a German intellectual, nor an award-winning American newspaper are exempt from being wrong."
Spiky.
The U.S. must understand the futility and stop “taunting” Russia, the editorial says. Meaning: Ukraine will lose anyway, stop helping it so it’s over faster.
A common view, presented as realism, which would not be entirely unreasonable were it not usually presented without consideration of whether Ukraine might prefer some losses more than others.
It's typical short-termism: we'd like cheaper energy, and that "easiest" way to that is through the defeat of a democracy at the hands of a tyranny.
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
Does beg the question what we do if Putin wins his war. Not an easy question to answer.
Putin cannot win the war. He can occupy a couple of Eastern areas, but the rest of the Ukrainian state survives and funds an endless guerilla regime. It will be the French resistance on steroids. If the Russians are bled out, they don't have the economic strength to last 20 years like the US in Afghanistan.
Putin will take the eastern part of Ukraine, subsume it into Russia, then say that anybody supplying weapons to Ukraine to take the Donbas is declaring war on Russia. And hope that Germany, France, Italy will cease weapons shipments.
Even if the coward alliance buckles, you still have the US, UK and Poland shipping in weapons. And Putin is going to try to hold the land bridge to Crimea too. That will be too many Ukrainians to pacify.
You are spot on Aslan, taking it one thing, holding it another. That Putin take Donbas isn’t certain the slow speed it going and the expense involved, but even if did, they are sitting ducks at pheasant shoot to chaos Ukraine counter offensive has coming at them.
Taking it back won't be easy. Modern warfare seeems to have evolved to favour the defender once more, and the supply lines will be more robust than outside Kyiv. Establishing Ukranian air supremacy and offensive capability is not a short term possibility.
Comments
The next argument is likely to be over the Italian support for Putin’s latest gambit offering to ‘allow’ grain exports if sanctions are lifted.
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1529915762109992964
Yet again, the same pattern is repeated. Russia creates a problem and then generously offers to solve it. Some naive people call it de-escalation.
Remarkable that Putin told it to Draghi.Italy might face waves of migrants via Mediterranean if there's hunger in Africa, Middle East
For all the NATO promises, artillery is the king of the battlefield in a stationary war, and numbers there favour Russia.
It's Keynesianism.
Not the worst idea right now.
One may as well worry about a glut of unicorns.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1529847897705132032
… 🔹Situation in Luhansk Obl extremely difficult
🔹🇷🇺 advances but slowly because of fierce 🇺🇦 resistance
🔹No 🇷🇺troops on Bakhmut-Lysychansk road but it is within range of 🇷🇺 fire, using it is dangerous
🔹🇷🇺s fight on outskirts of Sievierodonetsk, shell it w/mortars…
(just now, 6hrs later)
…Intense battles ongoing in Sievierodonetsk - RegHead Haidai
Russians advancing in Borivske, Ukraine holds on in Zolote & Katerynivka. Russians retreat in Toshkivka. Lysychansk-Bakhmut road under Russian fire, evacuation & humanit.aid delivered otherwise
I note that in Scotland where there is no established church 16% are now Roman Catholic compared to 9% in England
I think 5% would be considered a lot.
73% counted
Lab 32.2%
Lib 29.5%
Greenn 29.4%
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/macn
Still are ahead in Brisbane as a saver.
Suppose they were to replace council tax with a house value tax - they could probably cut the majority of people's tax bills and still raise more tax overall. Or they could levy National Insurance on pensioner's incomes at the same time as cutting the rates, and thereby cut NI for most taxpayers while still increasing the overall tax take.
We've Tory Socialism.
We are now in the 4th term of the Tories in power seeking to win a 5th consecutive general election in 2024
No party has won most seats for 5 general elections in a row either since universal suffrage
And what does ‘elasticity’ of revenue measure ? It depends on a myriad things, and varies between societies, and over time within societies.
And to further quibble, 100% tax rates - confiscation - don’t raise zero revenue.
It’s not maths, just a broad description of one general effect among many, which has something to do with tax take.
@RBReich
·
1h
Republicans don’t actually care about saving lives and protecting our children. As long as they can keep the NRA campaign cash flowing, they can’t be bothered.
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1529925929417383936
The reality, though, is that (a) it's morally wrong to abandon the Ukrainians for a slightly lower electricity bill, and (b) appeasing invaders is not a long-term successful strategy.
The Senate could go either way
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/
About a dozen are already in action, and more will be, soon. "The bottleneck is training."
Since the howitzers use NATO ammunition, there is unlikely to be a shortage of shells, any time soon.
The French have promised to send some of their Caesar truck-mounted howitzers, which can "shoot and scoot". Unfortunately, the training for these takes longer than the training for the M777s, months, perhaps, rather than weeks.
Overall, I would say the tone of the article is cautiously optimistic.
(Caveats: I am no expert on artillery, and I am unfamiliar with the two reporters who wrote the article: Andrew E. Kramer adn Maria Varennikova.)
This only ends when the West have defeated him and he is no longer in power.
Fasten the seats belts kids.
My first gut feel was I liked what Rishi has done. Economists seem to feel it is both a lot of money and nicely targeted. But green lobby seem to be going ballistic about a sweetener to energy producers on drilling? And whilst praising the package all economists flagged up they don’t share Sunak’s stated confidence this is a one off - they fear the problems persists long enough to stop this being a one off. Is that why the windfall tax isn’t set up as a one off with a 3 year clause - Rishi saying one off but planning for another raid? Personally I’m not convinced the package isn’t inflationary - fight a slump and recession with Keynesian “splurges” as the mail called it, but you don’t fight inflation with a splurge. I’ll give you an example, some people getting hand out don’t need it, Rishi has effectively handed them some Krug and Belgium chocolates. There is a further way it can cost Sunak votes, and that’s where you draw the line, some people very nearly almost as hard up as those getting the largess won’t be getting the largess. .
Incidentally, the dateline on the article is "Pokrovsk, Ukraine".
The answer is, though, that we maintain sanctions and the US (unless Trump is reelected) maintains sanctions. I would hope the EU will keep its backbone, but the reality is that there is one country (Hungary) who actively supports Russia, and a further couple who are desperate to avoid recessions. (And if the Italian government loses this year, it will end up with an even more pro-Russian party in power.)
The UK and the US, though, matter. Strong sanctions from the two would have a serious negative impact on Russia's economy and ability to extract hydrocarbons.
And even if Russia wins, it will have successfully reinvigorated NATO, and ensured that Europe diversifies its energy import mix.
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
CHB: me too. Cheers!
Athwal, Jas Labour Party 2349 Elected
Khan, Tanweer Akhtar Labour Party 2148 Elected
Solanki, Vanisha Surendra Labour Party 2125 Elected
............................................................................................................................
Corbin, Carol Conservative Party Candidate 525
Begum, Maria Conservative Party Candidate 470
Khushi Pasha, Masood Conservative Party Candidate 360
Khanam, Sufia Liberal Democrats 229
Hussain, Majad Independent Network 218
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/voting-and-elections/2022-local-election-results-summary/
https://youtube.com/shorts/xcTc6DJkBtg?feature=share
Sounds like British accents + FP view of NLAW in combat.
https://twitter.com/DrEricLevi/status/1529820981094539264?t=x8P0_yilzVQ7hCG5q_OO1w&s=19
Worth reading the thread below. It seems quite a flu epidemic too as their winter starts.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/why-does-the-us-make-it-so-hard-to-be-a-doctor/622065/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"The first thing I would do is to expand the residency system so that more doctors can become residents after medical school,” Orr told me. “This might be the key bottleneck. The medical schools say they can’t easily expand, because there aren’t enough residency slots for their graduates to fill. But there aren’t enough residency slots because Washington has purposefully limited federal residency financing.” The arithmetic is simple: More funding means more residents; more residents allows medical schools to grow; more medical students today means more doctors in a decade."
More or less the same problem here, with the numbers in Specialist training in my speciality unchanged in 15 years, and 15 years ago was a reduction. The numbers are controlled by HEE as part of the DoH, not by doctors bodies.
- Russian media is now warning that food insecurity will lead to cannibalism in Britain
https://twitter.com/phil_tinline/status/1529583045937864706
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/26/filtration-and-forced-deportation-mariupol-survivors-on-the-lasting-terrors-of-russias-assault
2019 was a crazy political year in UK, what with threat of a Corbyn government (Tbf the manifesto they released themselves screamed we are not ready for government) and the raw Brexit goose still flapping around needing to be cooked. There were two key elections in quick succession - to the Tory Crown, to Downing Street - and due diligence was not carried out in either.
Amongst all the hyper active newspapers on Partygate, the Sun called this one right on their Gray release front page, this mess was all your own creating Prime Minister, now turn the page put it in the past and get down to the providing the governing and leadership the people need.
The bottom line is, this constant swirl of chaos and confusion and entitlement around Boris isn’t disappearing overnight, it’s how he has lived his entire life. Rather like old man river Trump only had the one way of rolling along, same with Boris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jas_Athwal
“Part of the conversation…we have to be unified…”
https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1530007672933736448
Three times @GarrettHaake asks Rep. Tony Gonzales R-TX why 18 year olds should be allowed to buy assault rifles. Each time, Gonzales just starts talking about something else.
It does NOT mean anybody can arm themselves anywhere and anyhow they like. You cannot park a tank on your front lawn or install a thermonuclear device in your garden shed because the State reserves the right to designate what access you have to weaponry.
The US State allows a remarkably wide and free access and one consequence is repeated massacres of the kind we saw recently in Texas. But it's their country, not ours. If they choose to endure that kind of thing rather than impose some sensible gun-control measures it's their business, not ours. If we don't like it, we just stay away.
—A uniformed TX law enforce official says some police went in to get THEIR OWN kids.
—Same spox says officers held back because “they could have been shot.”
(These are both on-camera statements.)…
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1529976593321545732
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-61601405
Rishi shortened two points to 14 in Betfair's next Prime Minister market, and four points into 10 for next Conservative leader.
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1529974140765077506
Company that made weapons used in Uvalde massacre offers “thoughts and prayers.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTsCuI7VEAMGKEf?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1529819497032347648
Not that it will make any difference. The average member of the Conservative Party is now about 82 years old and would back Count Dracula for leader if he guaranteed high house price inflation and low inheritance taxes.
Let's say CP wins most seats but no majority and no CP partnership with other parties is possible. Can CP decide to govern on a minority basis or would the fact that the LP COULD form a majority with other parties take precedent?
Secondly, I know that a minority government is unsustainable but if no party could get a coalition or other partnership with other parties could the CP say there must be another GE in three months and we will govern on minority basis until then?
This has significance for betting purposes.