Oh, I agree, and it's important not to turn them into holy grails. Like voting at an election: unless you're a party zealot, no one party will probably match everything you want. There will be some policies you love, and some you dislike. Ditto the people within.
There'll be things I dislike about *any* voting system; there will be compromises to the above (except for the sanctity of the actual voting process - I won't back down on that). It's a case of being adult and picking the bext compromise.
I'm not saying we do not have political parties; just that they should be given as little power as possible, whereas they always want to get more power.
I agree with much of what you say, and think you'd like the Swiss system which forces voters to take direct responsibility, one issue at a time. The parties are essentially advisory bodies.
That said, I think your perception of parties as monolithic forces detached from MPs and forcing them to act against their better judgment is exaggerated. Most MPs have been members of their parties for many years, not usually for career reasons but because they broadly agree with them. Of course there are times when MPs say to each other "Are we REALLY going ahead with this thing?" but most of the time there's a sense of common purpose and the party is voluntarily given the benefit of the doubt, so "giving parties less power" would make little difference. I make mostly pro-Labour posts here, with occasional criticisms, because it's what I think - nobody is pressing me to post.
It was much the same as an MP, except that when I had criticisms I'd get a discussion with the Minister an, usually, some tweaks to make the policy more acceptable - much as Gove & co have done over the 45p. I was only once directly pressured by a whip - "If you won't that way, you won't get any visits from senior Ministers at election time". I laughed, and made a point of voting the way I wanted. No repercussions followed and the Chief Whip (Hilary Armstrong) privately apologised.
It's more like a marriage. You sometimes squabble, and generally end up compromising or shrugging and getting over it. Occasionally it gets bad enough to make you split up. But it's misleading to say that one has the "power" over the other.
When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.
Kwarteng like Truss: incapable of anything but the most banal copy-and-paste political sloganeering: 'What I'm focusing on' etc etc. No intellectual presence in the conversation at all. https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1576836990242549761
Just to note that KK used the word 'contrition' on R4 Today interview with NR. I doubt if this has yet been given proper weight. Normally politicians don't do that.
Nah. The budget increased interest rate expectations by something like an extra per cent before the Bank reversed itself and did more QE. As you would expect from a huge unfunded stimulus.
When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.
This will raise eyebrows at Buckingham Palace. Has @KwasiKwarteng forgotten that as Chancellor he is a royal trustee who, with the Prime Minister, actually sets the percentage of Crown Estate profits that are paid for the Sovereign Grant? https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1576830758018502657
Oh, I agree, and it's important not to turn them into holy grails. Like voting at an election: unless you're a party zealot, no one party will probably match everything you want. There will be some policies you love, and some you dislike. Ditto the people within.
There'll be things I dislike about *any* voting system; there will be compromises to the above (except for the sanctity of the actual voting process - I won't back down on that). It's a case of being adult and picking the bext compromise.
I'm not saying we do not have political parties; just that they should be given as little power as possible, whereas they always want to get more power.
I agree with much of what you say, and think you'd like the Swiss system which forces voters to take direct responsibility, one issue at a time. The parties are essentially advisory bodies.
That said, I think your perception of parties as monolithic forces detached from MPs and forcing them to act against their better judgment is exaggerated. Most MPs have been members of their parties for many years, not usually for career reasons but because they broadly agree with them. Of course there are times when MPs say to each other "Are we REALLY going ahead with this thing?" but most of the time there's a sense of common purpose and the party is voluntarily given the benefit of the doubt, so "giving parties less power" would make little difference. I make mostly pro-Labour posts here, with occasional criticisms, because it's what I think - nobody is pressing me to post.
It was much the same as an MP, except that when I had criticisms I'd get a discussion with the Minister an, usually, some tweaks to make the policy more acceptable - much as Gove & co have done over the 45p. I was only once directly pressured by a whip - "If you won't that way, you won't get any visits from senior Ministers at election time". I laughed, and made a point of voting the way I wanted. No repercussions followed and the Chief Whip (Hilary Armstrong) privately apologised.
It's more like a marriage. You sometimes squabble, and generally end up compromising or shrugging and getting over it. Occasionally it gets bad enough to make you split up. But it's misleading to say that one has the "power" over the other.
When you only have two parties with any great chance of being the government, though, that "common purpose" effectively excludes quite a large range of political opinion.
Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.
Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.
Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.
KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
He got a bit cross, didn't he.
Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
I was one of those who would have benefited substantially from the 45% tax band abolition, but I didn't want or deserve it.
But the tax system does need reform. One of my employees has a performance element to pay. She worked very diligently and beyond the call of duty, and breached the 50K income level, where not only did she reach the 40% band, but she lost her child benefit. She had no financial reward for her hard work. This is NOT an incentive to improve productivity.
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
For a PB expert on Scotland you show a touching naïveté sometimes.
I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.
I've cashed out of Brazil for a decent profit but looking at the first round results aren't all the Gomes voters going to go for Lula and get him a comfortable and commanding 52% without much hassle?
I was one of those who would have benefited substantially from the 45% tax band abolition, but I didn't want or deserve it.
But the tax system does need reform. One of my employees has a performance element to pay. She worked very diligently and beyond the call of duty, and breached the 50K income level, where not only did she reach the 40% band, but she lost her child benefit. She had no financial reward for her hard work. This is NOT an incentive to improve productivity.
This captures the basic problem with redistributionist thinking. It assumes a static system rather than a dynamic system in which people's income varies over time and the pool of taxpayers changes.
Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.
KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
He got a bit cross, didn't he.
Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.
Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.
KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
He got a bit cross, didn't he.
Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
He has to go.
Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
We've never had four chancellors in one calendar year before, or at least, not that I know of.
She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
Problem is - would you really want to be Chancellor with Truss as PM... When Truss is kicked out (September next year at the latest?) that's probably your career finished as well...
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Still not voting for this bunch of c-words. Zero humility.
KK used the word ‘proud’ this morning. He is remarkably arrogant.
He got a bit cross, didn't he.
Anyway it doesn't matter. He's a dead man walking. Truss's departure will be slower and more carefully timed, but there is no way the Tories can go into the next election with these two up front and centre stage.
I wonder if the next thing they pick off is the chancellor...
He has to go.
Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
We've never had four chancellors in one calendar year before, or at least, not that I know of.
She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
Problem is - would you really want to be Chancellor with Truss as PM... When Truss is kicked out (September next year at the latest?) that's probably your career finished as well...
Mogg or Philp would do it. Or Zahawi perhaps, although that would spoil the record.
Their careers are over anyway when she goes so they have nothing to lose.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
They could use the Trump course in Aberdeenshire as an example. Two birds (Tories and SNP)
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
What time was the @R4Today KK interview? I fancy a shot of schadenfreude.
NR did a very good job of eliding the fiscal and political implications of the u-turn. He was talking both about the markets being spooked by unfunded fiscal stimulus and allowed it to appear to the untrained ear that the 45p rate was at the heart of this. Which of course it wasn't.
Fiscally the 45p rate cut was of course negligible (mindful however of course of the a billion here a billion there maxim) but politically it was devastating. NR managed to combine the two together as though the £2bn from the tax cut was what the markets were worried about.
That said, now it's done, it may be that "the people" think well we told them and they listened which wouldn't be wholly negative for the Cons.
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of a 45 billion package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy on the back of this one..
Well indeed, as I said last week politically and media management this has been utterly mishandled and is atrocious, but economically its different.
The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.
The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.
The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.
But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.
Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.
With Bolsonaro coming back into play, maybe UK Tories were too quick to write Boris Johnson off?
Maybe Brazilian election shows us too quick to write Truss off as well - this aspirational, not giving in to the long term decline caused by too much handouts, pride in your country and flag messaging seems successful the world over at the moment.
Bolsonaro is wildly popular with a large number of Brazilians, even if he’s unpopular with a greater number. He’ was also running against a man who did jail time for corruption.
Truss is comparable how, exactly ?
Very very similar messaging Nigel, that you are too quick to dismiss claiming you know better about what happened.
aspirational not giving in to decline caused by too much handouts making people idle and not entrepreneurial enough pride in your country and flag and striving to be best in the world
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
Seriously? There's millions of them, all squabbling over whisky and football. You can hear them from N Ireland now that Ian Paisley has stopped preaching and the bombs have stopped.
I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.
Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
It was the Dandy. The Jocks were the local team (the Dandy being a Scottish publication). The tartan outfits might have provided a hint at their origins!
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
Buy a dictionary, oh language student, that might solve your perpetual angry befuddlement.
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
Always look at the DSL. It's simply the equivalent of Jack further south (also occurs in N. England I think).
The U-turn actually reverses a significant increase in the SG budget. Interesting to see whether the SNP complain about it.
Tax is an issue for Scotland. The country depends on high earners in Aberdeenshire and Edinburgh for revenue, and putting them off over the long-term is not ideal.
Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.
Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.
No, we have two main parties because that is by far the most stable point in an FPTP system, and other parties can't get in merely by providing a "compelling offering" because, again, the system makes that a very hard uphill struggle. If you want a system where people can usefully express their opinions and third parties can be a workable vehicle for doing that in a meaningful way, you should favour some kind of voting reform.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
How many years would you go back - the last thing you want is for arguments that go - why should I suffer I left x years ago....
I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.
Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
I'll believe the spending cuts when I see them. Going back to a point in @Cyclefree's splendid header*, they look fine as numbers on a spreadsheet. But if the consequence is chunks of health, education, policing utterly falling over, demands on charities for food and warmth going through the roof, is the government really going to go through with them?
Really?
* They remind me of the traditional satirical broadside done as a straight monologue to camera. Five or so minutes of distilled relentless righteous anger directed at someone who deserves it.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
It'd tie bankers in with the competance of their bank. If they believe in it and it's asset sheet, they'll be well rewarded.
How many years would you go back - the last thing you want is for arguments that go - why should I suffer I left x years ago....
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
DWP, abolish the triple lock. That'd be a good start.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023. They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
A U-turn is clearly the best moral decision but politically it makes them look absolutely pathetic. How can they have credibility on anything ever again?
If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .
Tebet has beaten Gomes. Thronicke, d avilia and Kelmon votes all go to Bolsonaro, Lula could still lose the run off quite comfortably from here. Lula supporters were right to be nervous, the right and centre parties have defied the polls to win this election the only caveat being enough Tebet centre votes breaking for Lula to pip him over the line at the end of the month.
The drift in Brazilian Politics is clearly rightward, not even an error strewn first term from Balsonaro could stem that.
Lula could lose the runoff, but it wouldn't be comfortably.
Totally agree, now that it has extended to 5 points with himself on 48. Still a squeaky win in very sad polarised country. 😕
The caveats though is getting the same vote out and no switching. There’s no room for a black swan or sort of thing Hilary suffered from, making it far from sort of bet Ping could put the mortgage on, if Ping had one.
Politics is about compromise. If we only have two parties with any chance of success then that is because they are the only two parties who have decided to compromise on their ideals.
Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.
No, we have two main parties because that is by far the most stable point in an FPTP system, and other parties can't get in merely by providing a "compelling offering" because, again, the system makes that a very hard uphill struggle. If you want a system where people can usefully express their opinions and third parties can be a workable vehicle for doing that in a meaningful way, you should favour some kind of voting reform.
If 100% of the voters of Bootle decided to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party then the Monster Raving Loony Party would win the seat.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023. They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
The Yorkshire Dales is only now covering the area that was originally proposed because some landlords successfully refused for their land to be included in it was it was first created...
Also I note that most people probably don't understand that quarry's (and reservoirs) override National parks anyway...
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Chaos at the English-Scottish border this morning as those convoys of millionaire Jocks moving to England for the benign tax regime u-turn when they realise it’s a complete waste of time.
You keep using this word “jock”. WTF does it mean?
Uh oh, the language police have been triggered again.
Language student more like. Seriously, who does it refer to? I remember the “Jocks and the Geordies” from the Beano (Dandy?) in my early youth and, while now I know Geordies are from Newcastle, I still have literally no idea what Jocks were supposed to represent.
Is this a genuine question? Isn't Jock for Scottish a pretty common use, like Pom and Pommie for the English by Aussies? And 'sweaties' - sweaty sock = jock too?
I thought KK was not too bad this morning; positively reassuring. I can live with an incompetent government as a perhaps necessary step towards good government after the lying cheating era ended.
Given the rumoured spending cuts - I have to disagree with you there - Truss is making the lying cheating era appear at vaguely compassionate and sane...
I'll believe the spending cuts when I see them. Going back to a point in @Cyclefree's splendid header*, they look fine as numbers on a spreadsheet. But if the consequence is chunks of health, education, policing utterly falling over, demands on charities for food and warmth going through the roof, is the government really going to go through with them?
Really?
* They remind me of the traditional satirical broadside done as a straight monologue to camera. Five or so minutes of distilled relentless righteous anger directed at someone who deserves it.
This is essentially a clumsy and disorganised rehash of austerity, but carried out after the first attempt was branded a failure; led by people with none of the credibility of Cameron and Osborne; and with no mandate and in contradiction to what people voted for.
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
You're protesting the building of a school ?!
I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
I'd tie the bankers bonus cap lifting into personal liability should their bank collapse. So if you're an employee of Credit Suisse (To take a random bank) and it collapses all your personal assets will be collected before the state spends a penny of it's money on bail outs. Fair's fair. Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
In general it's shareholders and not staff who bear this burden in a society of laws.
Looks to me when push and shove come it's the taxpayer.
Hopefully not next time, but either way shareholders and boards have the power to decide strategy and risk taking.
Leave the banks to manage themselves, what could possibly go wrong there?
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
Oh, I have no doubt I'm wealthy. It's more that the point about reversing the corporation tax increase may have more appeal than the "it's a sop to big business" line.
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
You're protesting the building of a school ?!
I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
Got to say that around here the one things that are not appearing as x,000 new houses are built in the final scheme before they hit the motorway is the additional Primary and Secondary schools that were originally promised...
So, Labour now need to campaign on whether KK will u turn on Bankers bonuses.
They need to force the Tories to spell out exactly:
- what spending cuts and supply side measures they intend - precisely how these will lead to growth - over what timetable and - for whom.
We have had no clarity on the first and I am willing to bet that Truss and co., have no answers on the remaining 3.
And all the environmental stuff. That riles people more than anything, including Tory voting RSPB members.
Yes - I was including that in their supply side measures. Their proposed Investment Zones, for instance, where planning measures can be relaxed include Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks.
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Good. We need to tell NIMBY scum to piss off.
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
I don't really get this - nothing wrong in opposing something that reduces your quality of life, and using the democratic levers available to you to protest it.
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
Yes. Find another field, or buy it yourself if you don't want it developing.
It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????
I assume you meant to tag @Eabhal in that not me? I agree with your comment 100%
This hasn't shifted the UK corporate bond and gilt markets, as I understand it. This is only 2 billion out of 45 million package, as Bartholomew says.
Now there'll have to be more changes of policy, on the back of this one..
The extraordinary fact is that labour is now aligned with the conservatives on all the main measures including the 2 year cap
Labour isn't supporting a number of the others. We need a full breakdown on this, from one of our stats-expert posters.
Corporation tax reduction and bankers bonuses are the remaining divide
Corporation tax reduction has been bigged up as one of the "for the wealthy" features of the budget. Yet for those self-employed who are set up as companies, the reversal of the tax increase is a major boost (yes, I am one of them).
Check where you come in the UK income distribution to confirm to yourself you are not amongst "the wealthy" - you might be surprised.
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.” https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Love to know where anyone can see spending cuts coming from - most departments are already cut to the bone following austerity followed by spending focussed on particular areas (see for example our Justice system).
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
You need to change your way of looking at the problem. Instead of "departments are already cut to the bone" logic, if you get rid of a department then you can cut its budget all the way to zero, fire unnecessary staff and more closely approach the Libertarian ideal of a tiny govt.
So which departments do you want to bin
Employment Benefit / Pensions Environment Justice Education Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power) Home Office
There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....
Comments
Personally I have always found Cambridge educated economists to be wonderful fonts of wisdom.
Our system allows people to express their opinions - if the BNP or RCP had a compelling offering then they would sweep the board and form the next government.
Although his replacement is likely as bad, given the level of Truss appointees.
https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
But the tax system does need reform. One of my employees has a performance element to pay. She worked very diligently and beyond the call of duty, and breached the 50K income level, where not only did she reach the 40% band, but she lost her child benefit. She had no financial reward for her hard work. This is NOT an incentive to improve productivity.
https://www.cpre.org.uk/
She could set one record without even being the shortest serving PM.
Fair's fair.
Or you can have the old bonus at no liability.
*pictures Gove gently stroking a white cat
So, are Team Truss prepared to sit there, in office but not in power, for the next two years?
From now on we must refer to her as Supreme Leader Truss!
And whatever you do, do not shake her hand!!
It's as if they are identifying every interest group they can find and systematically designing policies aimed at pissing them off. It's quite impressive in its way.
Former work and pensions secretary Stephen Crabb tells @LBC the 45p tax rate U-turn “probably doesn’t draw a full line under the mini-budget”.
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576844924015718401
Stephen Crabb: “Certainly when the Government starts signalling it wants wide-ranging spending cuts, there are going to be some pretty gritty conversations with backbenchers about where those spending cuts might fall.”
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1576845686884089857
Their careers are over anyway when she goes so they have nothing to lose.
Fiscally the 45p rate cut was of course negligible (mindful however of course of the a billion here a billion there maxim) but politically it was devastating. NR managed to combine the two together as though the £2bn from the tax cut was what the markets were worried about.
That said, now it's done, it may be that "the people" think well we told them and they listened which wouldn't be wholly negative for the Cons.
The idea that a £2bn tax change was responsible for rational market movements last week was absurd and I said so all along.
The Government is potentially having to borrow £150bn for energy support, which was called for by Labour, and £43bn per annum of alternative tax cuts which the Labour Party have said they'd keep too. Plus more importantly but completely missed by the media narrative, the Bank of England had said it would engage in £80bn in Quantitative Tightening, with more QT to come.
The notion that the Gilt markets could bear the £150bn + £43bn + £80bn but the £2bn extra was economically flawed was just absurd. It always was.
But the media narrative and public first impression is that is that everything is going to rich people.
Every working person just got a 2.25% tax cut between NI and Income Tax, 3.5% if you include Employers NI as you should, and the Government is going to get no credit for that at all as the £2bn has overshadowed everything else.
Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
aspirational
not giving in to decline caused by too much handouts making people idle and not entrepreneurial enough
pride in your country and flag and striving to be best in the world
A bit of a strange non sequitur
Propose it to include those sites, then "compromise" by excluding those sites, while getting past the NIMBY scum elsewhere.
As I said before while Truss may want £37bn of cuts I doubt there is £37 of easily identifiable ones
Greens promising a £15 minimum wage SKS is promising what will be a real terms pay cut by 2024 ie £10.
https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/jock
Tax is an issue for Scotland. The country depends on high earners in Aberdeenshire and Edinburgh for revenue, and putting them off over the long-term is not ideal.
Really?
* They remind me of the traditional satirical broadside done as a straight monologue to camera. Five or so minutes of distilled relentless righteous anger directed at someone who deserves it.
Have you been following this developing issue with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
In a nutshell, a bill that revokes all EU regulations transposed in to UK law by the end of 2023.
They are clearly hoping that they can restart the Brexit wars, but there might just be some perverse consequences.
https://simonicity.com/2022/10/01/ruler/
The caveats though is getting the same vote out and no switching. There’s no room for a black swan or sort of thing Hilary suffered from, making it far from sort of bet Ping could put the mortgage on, if Ping had one.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3245506#Comment_3245506
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3141719/#Comment_3141719
It doesn't get any more complicated than that.
That'll be the RSPCA on the Government's case, for one, now.
Also I note that most people probably don't understand that quarry's (and reservoirs) override National parks anyway...
Hope everything is good @Benpointer
For example, developers are proposing to build a new school in my home town on a very well used playing field next to the current school. No attempt has been made by the council to value that pitch or the trees surrounding it; in their eyes it's worthless and decision is an easy one.
Is it wrong to protest that?
Everyone who voted this lot in should have some self awareness. It is their fault, especially Sunils
They do seem to be getting quite a bit of practice at this move....
https://twitter.com/mikirede/status/1576851183813431296/photo/1
It's a new school - i.e. a project for the good of the community and you are upset by it?????
I always thought people who opposed developments wanted more schools near those (Mainly housing) developments..
Since the UK Government's actions don't impact the Pound, it was me having porridge this morning that caused this jump.
Good to hear that you at least are going to benefit from these tax changes ;-)
Edit: KC!
Liz Truss, 3 October: "I am not prepared to be THIS unpopular." ~AA
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1576850309309419520
Employment Benefit / Pensions
Environment
Justice
Education
Foreign Office (I'll take foreign aid going as a given given how clueless this Government is about soft power)
Home Office
There really isn't anything that can go that people don't want.....