Only 13.2% of Wellingborough voters signed Bone’s recall petition. That must mean 86.8% of Wellingborough voters must have been dead, in hospital, in jail, out of the country or intellectually challenged.
What a start! Windies chasing 268 and first ball is a golden duck. 🤣
Oh, hello Bart. I was just thinking I hadn't seen you in a while. Have you been taking a break or have I just failed to coincide with you lately?
A pedant would point out that 'first ball is a golden duck' is a tautology.
A greater pedant would retort that there are a number of things that can happen on a first ball - dot, 6,4, single etc. One of them is you might get out. If you are then 'duck' is an incomplete description, and the correct complete description is 'golden duck', which despite being two words is a single description of a particular recurring eventuality.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
I have eaten oysters on several occasions they are fucking disgusting. However I am enough of a man to say they are fucking disgusting rather than to go with the flow because they are seen as haute cuisine by people like you who I suspect mostly go along with this shit because to not like oysters or champagne or caviar somehow marks you down as one of the hoi polloi....Oysters really are disgusting, fizzy wine is foul as for caviar it tastes salty is about the only thing you can say about it. You want to pay huge prices for overrated trash be my guest
Matter of taste, I think. I love almost all seafood, oysters included; my wife dislikes almost all, ditto. Posh is irrelevant in this case.
I think she was underrated. While Sporty and Scary were the heart and soul of the band, Posh caught the zeitgeist more than the others.
Only plebs think Posh Spice is Posh.
Next you will be saying that Emma Bunton was more than a year old.
Or that Geri Halliwell is a knobbly misshapen root, often shaved into oriental food.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
I have eaten oysters on several occasions they are fucking disgusting. However I am enough of a man to say they are fucking disgusting rather than to go with the flow because they are seen as haute cuisine by people like you who I suspect mostly go along with this shit because to not like oysters or champagne or caviar somehow marks you down as one of the hoi polloi....Oysters really are disgusting, fizzy wine is foul as for caviar it tastes salty is about the only thing you can say about it. You want to pay huge prices for overrated trash be my guest
Matter of taste, I think. I love almost all seafood, oysters included; my wife dislikes almost all, ditto. Posh is irrelevant in this case.
I think she was underrated. While Sporty and Scary were the heart and soul of the band, Posh caught the zeitgeist more than the others.
Only plebs think Posh Spice is Posh.
Next you will be saying that Emma Bunton was more than a year old.
Or that Geri Halliwell is a knobbly misshapen root, often shaved into oriental food.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
This is coming from someone who once posted (and it stuck in my mind from so long ago it was so striking) you were down the pub watching the rugby drinking white wine. Drinking white wine? I drink bitter in the pub, my wife drinks white wine.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
I have eaten oysters on several occasions they are fucking disgusting. However I am enough of a man to say they are fucking disgusting rather than to go with the flow because they are seen as haute cuisine by people like you who I suspect mostly go along with this shit because to not like oysters or champagne or caviar somehow marks you down as one of the hoi polloi....Oysters really are disgusting, fizzy wine is foul as for caviar it tastes salty is about the only thing you can say about it. You want to pay huge prices for overrated trash be my guest
Matter of taste, I think. I love almost all seafood, oysters included; my wife dislikes almost all, ditto. Posh is irrelevant in this case.
I think she was underrated. While Sporty and Scary were the heart and soul of the band, Posh caught the zeitgeist more than the others.
Only plebs think Posh Spice is Posh.
Next you will be saying that Emma Bunton was more than a year old.
Or that Geri Halliwell is a knobbly misshapen root, often shaved into oriental food.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
I have eaten oysters on several occasions they are fucking disgusting. However I am enough of a man to say they are fucking disgusting rather than to go with the flow because they are seen as haute cuisine by people like you who I suspect mostly go along with this shit because to not like oysters or champagne or caviar somehow marks you down as one of the hoi polloi....Oysters really are disgusting, fizzy wine is foul as for caviar it tastes salty is about the only thing you can say about it. You want to pay huge prices for overrated trash be my guest
Matter of taste, I think. I love almost all seafood, oysters included; my wife dislikes almost all, ditto. Posh is irrelevant in this case.
It is a matter of taste and there is certainly a food snobbery around many things like champagne, caviar, oysters . That was the whole gist of leons post in essence....you are not man enough to eat them else you would love them.... now imagine saying that to someone about for example liver which many people detest. Personally I enjoy it but I don't claim people are deficient for not sharing my taste.
Champagne is the worst of it....get offered a glass and go no thanks and its all "but this is champagne" I have tried many from high to low end frankly I would rather put my own urine in a soda stream than drink the muck....hell I would rather have a pint of watneys red barrel than a glass of champagne and that really is foul
Could someone please explain why I am supposed to enjoy champagne more than wine, real ale, malt whisky, or even piss?
Champagne differs from its own uppityness. It’s delicious, though English or Welsh sparkling wine is of course equally delicious, but because it’s seen as an occasion wine most people don’t actually drink it for the taste. Or have too high expectations. Which is a shame. It’s simply a good drink, better than crémants or cava, but not holy water.
No, there is an actual reason. And I have cited it below
Champagne makes me fart.
Oysters are ... ok. I like a seafoody taste, but I find a food you're supposed to drink challenging. I prefer mussels, tbh. Or cockles. Or prawns. And I prefer cava to champagne. Though if I were offered a glass of champagne right now I would cheerfully accept.
Champagne (and Cava) do of course cover a vast array of flavour profiles, varietal mixes, ages etc. But generic Cava plus a tiny dab of fino sherry is a lovely combination.
Mrs Foxy used the love Champagne, but now prefers Prosecco from Sainsbury. Quite unpleasant to my taste, being thin and dry with little bouquet. Her taste buds changed with covid 2 years ago and never totally recovered.
Now, at Leon's request, lesson 2 of successful project management: Make sure all the targets you publish are slam-dunk gimmes.
Lesson 2a of project management, at no one’s request but relevant to Sunak’s promises: if at the time you set targets they were actually slam dunk gimmies, driving trains pays well as an alternative career.
However, the truth here, in case you have not been paying attention, If the economy grows at 0.00001 and 0.000001 is shaved off borrowing, Sunak can tell Mr Speaker he has grown the economy and got borrowing down, at every PMQs. And he is.
There is not a cat in hell's chance of even 0.000001p being shaved off Debt (which as the pledge). The amount being added to debt each month (the deficit) might reduce but that is not what Sunak pledged. (And in fact the deficit rose to in the last published figures which were for Q2 2023.)
Hey Ben, this is new today.
in a video posted on X after the autumn statement Sunak said “debt is falling”. Later in November he told MPs at PMQs “we have indeed reduced debt”.
No 10 tried to justify Sunak’s “is falling” comment by saying he was referring to what was forecast to happen in 2028. 🫣
At what point is it straightforward lying to the House of Commons?
26m agoSunak rebuked by UK's statistics watchdog for making misleading claim about government debt falling
Indeed. I can today announce that I have lost a couple of stone in 2024.
Based on the changes in expected calorific intake, the securitised value of your weight has changed and so it’s entirely reasonable to mark to market and book that as an achievement.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
Question - whilst tax rates are devolved to Holyrood, is collection? Isn't HMRC responsible for collecting taxes north of the wall? The same HMRC cut to the bone by the Tories?
Gift Week for Scottish accountants. Will drop a merry Christmas email to mine, wonder how happy he is...
What a start! Windies chasing 268 and first ball is a golden duck. 🤣
Oh, hello Bart. I was just thinking I hadn't seen you in a while. Have you been taking a break or have I just failed to coincide with you lately?
A pedant would point out that 'first ball is a golden duck' is a tautology.
Been taking a break.
Only partially tautological, you can have both a golden duck that's not the first ball of an innings of course, as well as a first ball of an innings that's not a wicket so not a golden duck either.
This match has everything though, Windies making quick work of scoring now to stay in the match for now at least.
Well welcome back. What you say is true - you can have a golden duck which isn't first ball - but you can't have a first ball wicket which isn't a golden duck.
On another subject, I've just remembered mackerel. Mackerel is delicious. Though possibly it's the smoke you can taste and without that it would just taste fishy. And mackerel pate is delicious too, and very easy to make.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
On the Scottish budget I think it’s good we have some differential tax rates starting to pop up. In my opinion we need much more tax devolution. Allow regions and nations to experiment, see what works.
At the moment we have regional policies that are almost all decided from Westminster. This stifles regional competition.
The trouble is like most other devolution it means we need to be tolerant of regional differences in outcomes, and postcode lotteries.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
I said the ones affected...like most teams there is a range of salaries. I would not be affected if I lived in scotland
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
Dan Neidle has some very sensible suggestions for how we can amend the law to create more consequences for those who threaten libel action while lying.
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
It’s the increased take at 42.5% which raises the vast bulk of the extra money - and that hits those a much more modest salary.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
I don't think it's trivial. I wouldn't like to be the IT team in charge of assessing whether everyone's tax was subject to Scottish tax rates or English ones. But it's small compared to the amount raised by taxation. But my expectation is that this will be a net loss to the Scottish exchequer - they will lose more in discouraging people to earn than they will raise in people paying more tax, even if the cost of collection is ignored. But it will be an interesting experiment.
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
I once watched a TVshow about police interviews. One thing that always struck me was the point that if a suspect changes they’re story once, chances are they will change it again. What odds that Mone still isn’t telling the truth?
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
On the Scottish budget I think it’s good we have some differential tax rates starting to pop up. In my opinion we need much more tax devolution. Allow regions and nations to experiment, see what works.
At the moment we have regional policies that are almost all decided from Westminster. This stifles regional competition.
The trouble is like most other devolution it means we need to be tolerant of regional differences in outcomes, and postcode lotteries.
This used to be done (to a limited extent) with local Council Rates. As you say, a Good Thing (provided people (especially politicians) stop wittering on about a "Postcode Lottery".
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
Would you have preferred a cricketer who didn't win the World Cup?
Or a rugby player who didn't win the World Cup instead?
I had a soft spot for someone who won gold at the World Champioships, Josh Kerr, but in recent times the BBC has decided to restrict the number of candidates.
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
I once watched a TVshow about police interviews. One thing that always struck me was the point that if a suspect changes they’re story once, chances are they will change it again. What odds that Mone still isn’t telling the truth?
If she is telling the truth it would be a dramatic break with past practice.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Yes, if we only allowed footballers who won the World Cup to be SPOTY we would never get a footballing SPOTY. Gosh, Ryan Giggs won it won year. Not often you hear the words 'Ryan Giggs' and 'personality in the same sentence.
I actually watched Mary Earps at Old Trafford a couple of weeks back. It did not strike me that here was a particular outstanding goalkeeper. Her counterpart for City had a better game. But everyone has off days.
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
I don't think it's trivial. I wouldn't like to be the IT team in charge of assessing whether everyone's tax was subject to Scottish tax rates or English ones. But it's small compared to the amount raised by taxation. But my expectation is that this will be a net loss to the Scottish exchequer - they will lose more in discouraging people to earn than they will raise in people paying more tax, even if the cost of collection is ignored. But it will be an interesting experiment.
It’s really simple, if your address has a Scottish postcode your tax code has an S in front of it and you are subject to Scottish tax rates.
Payments need to be reported to HMRC via RTI and the money is paid directly to HMRC alongside payments for other employees
Supposedly the amount raised is £80m or so which is accurate if IR35 remains as it is because (as was pointed out elsewhere) it’s hard to switch to dividends if you are an employee being paid via PAYE
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
What a start! Windies chasing 268 and first ball is a golden duck. 🤣
Oh, hello Bart. I was just thinking I hadn't seen you in a while. Have you been taking a break or have I just failed to coincide with you lately?
A pedant would point out that 'first ball is a golden duck' is a tautology.
Been taking a break.
Only partially tautological, you can have both a golden duck that's not the first ball of an innings of course, as well as a first ball of an innings that's not a wicket so not a golden duck either.
This match has everything though, Windies making quick work of scoring now to stay in the match for now at least.
Well welcome back. What you say is true - you can have a golden duck which isn't first ball - but you can't have a first ball wicket which isn't a golden duck.
On another subject, I've just remembered mackerel. Mackerel is delicious. Though possibly it's the smoke you can taste and without that it would just taste fishy. And mackerel pate is delicious too, and very easy to make.
What if the 1st ball is a no-ball and you're out to the 2nd?
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
Interesting polling today on homeowners.
I expected that the owners without mortgages would be either wealthy or retired or both. Nonetheless Labour running a pretty close second in a core Tory demographic.
Can Starmer get out the grey vote?
By definition, anyone who has a house with no mortgage significantly before retirement in today's housing market must be fairly wealthy.*
A much bigger problem is they may not feel as if they are.
*As of today, this could include me although having fixed for 5 years at 1.6% two years ago I'm in no hurry to actually do so.
Or have inherited it or been gifted it by their parents
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
Interesting polling today on homeowners.
I expected that the owners without mortgages would be either wealthy or retired or both. Nonetheless Labour running a pretty close second in a core Tory demographic.
Can Starmer get out the grey vote?
By definition, anyone who has a house with no mortgage significantly before retirement in today's housing market must be fairly wealthy.*
A much bigger problem is they may not feel as if they are.
*As of today, this could include me although having fixed for 5 years at 1.6% two years ago I'm in no hurry to actually do so.
Or have inherited it or been gifted it by their parents
Ye-es, but that still comes under 'fairly wealthy.' Housing costs are a significant part of most people's budgets.
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
I once watched a TVshow about police interviews. One thing that always struck me was the point that if a suspect changes they’re story once, chances are they will change it again. What odds that Mone still isn’t telling the truth?
Mone has been lying since at least 2014, when she said Scotland would be better off remaining in the union.
That said I had some jolly nice oysters at the Red Lion and Sun, a gastropub in Highgate, yesterday
You can find oyster quality in odd places, but the more peripheral tend to be more variable (and you do NOT want variablity in oysters)
Your right I do not want variability in my oysters. I want no oysters.
Can't trust a man who doesn't love oysters. Sorry. It is the ultimate test of masculine soundness
It means you have overcome your natural but childish aversion to something that looks like donkey phlegm in an ashtray, and you have thought: I can do this. And you've girded your loins and you've tipped back your half shell and you've slurped it all up and then you've realised OMFG they're fantastic!!! And a lifelong love is born: because you were brave
THAT, my friends, THAT is a man
I have eaten oysters on several occasions they are fucking disgusting. However I am enough of a man to say they are fucking disgusting rather than to go with the flow because they are seen as haute cuisine by people like you who I suspect mostly go along with this shit because to not like oysters or champagne or caviar somehow marks you down as one of the hoi polloi....Oysters really are disgusting, fizzy wine is foul as for caviar it tastes salty is about the only thing you can say about it. You want to pay huge prices for overrated trash be my guest
Matter of taste, I think. I love almost all seafood, oysters included; my wife dislikes almost all, ditto. Posh is irrelevant in this case.
It is a matter of taste and there is certainly a food snobbery around many things like champagne, caviar, oysters . That was the whole gist of leons post in essence....you are not man enough to eat them else you would love them.... now imagine saying that to someone about for example liver which many people detest. Personally I enjoy it but I don't claim people are deficient for not sharing my taste.
Champagne is the worst of it....get offered a glass and go no thanks and its all "but this is champagne" I have tried many from high to low end frankly I would rather put my own urine in a soda stream than drink the muck....hell I would rather have a pint of watneys red barrel than a glass of champagne and that really is foul
Could someone please explain why I am supposed to enjoy champagne more than wine, real ale, malt whisky, or even piss?
Champagne gets you pissed much quicker. Because of the bubbles. This is why it is popularly served at social receptions where a more instaneous intoxication, or cheeriness, is required
So, if I were to market fizzy Buckfast, I would make my fortune in the wine bars of Govan?
What do you need fizz for?
"Flavour: Intense and sweet aromas of wild fruits such as plums and cherries, intertwined with notes of cola and a touch of anise.
Taste: It has a sweet and corpulent entrance. On the palate delicious cherry notes are released; shows its soft and pleasant texture."
It actually sounds quite interesting. I’ve never encountered it. Presumably it’s overly sweet and therefore rather less appealing than those tasting notes suggest?
Most of my team are scottish, the ones affected by the new tax rate are already looking at paying more into penisons/salary sacrifice schemes. One also remarked when I mentioned it that most of what it collected was going to be spent on collecting it
1. I thought you were always moaning about how your wages had stagnated and were piss-poor because of globalisation. Yet your team are all earning over £75k?
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
I don't think it's trivial. I wouldn't like to be the IT team in charge of assessing whether everyone's tax was subject to Scottish tax rates or English ones. But it's small compared to the amount raised by taxation. But my expectation is that this will be a net loss to the Scottish exchequer - they will lose more in discouraging people to earn than they will raise in people paying more tax, even if the cost of collection is ignored. But it will be an interesting experiment.
I don't know what the residency rules are but they will already be in existence and each employee assigned either to Scottish or English residence, surely, because differential tax has existed for some time.
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
Interesting polling today on homeowners.
I expected that the owners without mortgages would be either wealthy or retired or both. Nonetheless Labour running a pretty close second in a core Tory demographic.
Can Starmer get out the grey vote?
In 1997 Blair won even over 65s, if the Tories lead still, even narrowly, with home owners (outright) then Sunak should still keep the pensioner vote at least this time.
Interesting too RefUK almost second to Labour amongst those renting in social/housing association properties and the Greens almost second to Labour amongst those renting privately
Speculation of US/US-led strikes on Houthi positions in Yemen is rising. The Gulf allies seem ok with it but with different degrees of nervousness: Saudis concerned it might set off wider issues, UAE reportedly gung ho.
The US have enough assets to flatten a lot of Houthi gear but they had an intelligence shortfall on targets and not clear if thats been addressed yet. The whole multi national vessel protection operation is both standalone in nature but also provides an element of political cover for such a set of strikes.
The other question is Biden who seems to have a very cautious attitude on the degree of force he is inclined to authorise. This may mean, if it goes ahead, something small and reactive rather than maybe a few days of blasting the crap out of anything that may be hanging about the Yemeni coast.
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
The longer he drags it on the more damage is done to the party. His one wildcard is the Labour war against sanity Starmer.
Its entirely possible that Starmer collapses that lead. Its big but its soft. May blew things up, could Starmer also falter? Especially when put under the right amount of stress?
Sir Keir has fallen to bits a few times in interviews or under pressure; he doesn’t seem to be good answering questions and either stutters, goes completely blank or repeats the same sentence time and again as if the interviewer is being stupid by not understanding the first time
But I can’t see that shifting enough votes to make it competitive, can you? The public hate the Tories, and his own voters don’t seem to like Sunak that much
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
Yes I just meant to maximize the tax take (which Laffer supposedly is about) but an optimum tax regime is about more than that. People are not lemons, they need to have some juice left in there.
On the Scottish budget I think it’s good we have some differential tax rates starting to pop up. In my opinion we need much more tax devolution. Allow regions and nations to experiment, see what works.
At the moment we have regional policies that are almost all decided from Westminster. This stifles regional competition.
The trouble is like most other devolution it means we need to be tolerant of regional differences in outcomes, and postcode lotteries.
This used to be done (to a limited extent) with local Council Rates. As you say, a Good Thing (provided people (especially politicians) stop wittering on about a "Postcode Lottery".
Has anyone except a politician or the daily mail ever used the phrase “postcode lottery”
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
I once watched a TVshow about police interviews. One thing that always struck me was the point that if a suspect changes they’re story once, chances are they will change it again. What odds that Mone still isn’t telling the truth?
If she is telling the truth it would be a dramatic break with past practice.
You’re pretty committed to the alternative when you also employ people to lie on your behalf.
On the Scottish budget I think it’s good we have some differential tax rates starting to pop up. In my opinion we need much more tax devolution. Allow regions and nations to experiment, see what works.
At the moment we have regional policies that are almost all decided from Westminster. This stifles regional competition.
The trouble is like most other devolution it means we need to be tolerant of regional differences in outcomes, and postcode lotteries.
This used to be done (to a limited extent) with local Council Rates. As you say, a Good Thing (provided people (especially politicians) stop wittering on about a "Postcode Lottery".
Has anyone except a politician or the daily mail ever used the phrase “postcode lottery”
Apart from *the* Postcode Lottery, obviously…
I have sometimes heard it in vox-pop soundbites on news programmes, but you're generally right - it's a cliche beloved by politicos.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
HMRC did some work a decade ago which suggested there is a big drop off after 50%
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
Never ceases to amaze me how many PBers are fussy eaters who have lived sheltered lives.
It's depressing how many triumphalist middle-classes lefties are in thrall to the cult of foodism.
I’m unsure what one’s personal politics have to do with liking food and cookery. I mean, I know @Leon is a bit of a Keir Royaleist these days but I’d hardly call him a leftie.
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
The longer he drags it on the more damage is done to the party. His one wildcard is the Labour war against sanity Starmer.
Its entirely possible that Starmer collapses that lead. Its big but its soft. May blew things up, could Starmer also falter? Especially when put under the right amount of stress?
Sir Keir has fallen to bits a few times in interviews or under pressure; he doesn’t seem to be good answering questions and either stutters, goes completely blank or repeats the same sentence time and again as if the interviewer is being stupid by not understanding the first time
But I can’t see that shifting enough votes to make it competitive, can you? The public hate the Tories, and his own voters don’t seem to like Sunak that much
He could always hide in a fridge. That seems to work quite nicely during election campaigns.
Forget Con-Lab swing. This is an excellent test of recent RefUK polling accuracy. You’d expect them to do well - better than polls in fact. Interesting to see.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
One race against the best 1500m runners on the planet. But if you don’t like athletics, you won’t appreciate that I guess.
I left nearly 2 hours ago to serve up my boiled goat and it’s gratifying to see we’re still discussing oysters.
Not the laffer curve though. The funny thing is I spend much time in my day job arguing the ins and outs of high tax rat es and behaviour so I’m far from immune from the charms of laffer. I just don’t like it sprayed about as some kind of law of physics.
On oysters, there’s a very important thing to know. Not only are they delicious (and the French gobble them on Christmas Eve to counter the sadness they feel at not having Carols from Kings), but they are perfectly matched wine made from Melon de Bourgogne, aka Muscadet.
There is one vineyard, only one, in the UK that has ever attempted to grow Melon B, and it’s mine. First English Muscadets released probably in 2025 or 26. We are a few miles from Whitatable so I hope to sell much of it there.
Second thing is on boiled goat. I decided this evening the family should have a pot au feu / bollito misto, so I wandered down to Deptford high street and picked up some Endy bits of beef, some goat scrag end and a few turnips, and boiled it all up in the pressure cooker with parsley, potatoes and little carrots. You should do this. Delicious. Yet strangely virtuous feeling. .
That all sounds great, and fab, and I agree with 90% and I will buy your wine in Whitstable, but there is simply no way I am ever going to "Deptford High Street"
Deptford High Street is pretty incredible, so much to see, do and eat down there - South East London at its very best. We are so lucky here in SE14 to have both Deptford and Peckham right on our doorstep.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
HMRC did some work a decade ago which suggested there is a big drop off after 50%
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
My effective tax rate is well north of 50%. Close to 54% when I last looked.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
Agreed. One of the great problems with athletics as a sport is that a winning 100m looks identical to a losing 100m etc etc. Ditto swimming. And longer races are just boring to watch: the London marathon being a case in point. Team sports are vastly superior spectacles.
Mr Sunak will use the LE as a test run for a June election. When the results are, ahem, not quite what he needs then he will panic and delay until November.
It doesn't matter. Neither immigration nor oysters will save him
My assumption all along had been that he would go late. Why wouldn't he? But then came the autumn statement, and we have plenty of evidence that Plan A is 2nd May.
Sunak needs momentum - not just to try and recover the polls, but also to bowl out the lunatics in the five families / ReFUK. A push towards an election is the best momentum he will get.
By March they will know that the Rwanda bill has bogged down. That's its purpose. Blame the Blob / Labour / Woke, run an immigration election, "the people's priorities vs Labour" etc and hope that Starmer trips himself up.
Or, don't. Wait it out. Rwanda bogs down with no end in sight. 5 Families out for blood, Farage out for more. Polls not closing. And no cards left to play.
And his choice is either to put down his one remaining chip in May, when it almost certainly loses, or bide his time until October when he even more almost certainly loses. The effect of people remortgaging trumps any tax cuts he can pretend to offer.
Even if May leads to a smaller defeat for the party, October leads to a better, longer stay in No 10 for Sunak and a longer time in Parliament for many of his MPs.
And that's his dilemma.
The longer he drags it on the more damage is done to the party. His one wildcard is the Labour war against sanity Starmer.
Its entirely possible that Starmer collapses that lead. Its big but its soft. May blew things up, could Starmer also falter? Especially when put under the right amount of stress?
Sir Keir has fallen to bits a few times in interviews or under pressure; he doesn’t seem to be good answering questions and either stutters, goes completely blank or repeats the same sentence time and again as if the interviewer is being stupid by not understanding the first time
But I can’t see that shifting enough votes to make it competitive, can you? The public hate the Tories, and his own voters don’t seem to like Sunak that much
Repeating the same line over and over in poliitcal interviews is commonplace nowadays, to make it harder for the editor of the interview to cut the line out completely.
First it was Chris Pincher, now Peter Bone, should Rishi Sunak be worried about Greg Hands?
There's always an exception to the rule, I give you James Cleverly.
Michelle Mone
Having watched the Mone interview two things struck me. Firstly a lot of Botox seems to havebeen involved.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press? Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
No law against saying that someone who lied so consistently simply can’t be taken at her word that she did nothing criminal, either.
I once watched a TVshow about police interviews. One thing that always struck me was the point that if a suspect changes they’re story once, chances are they will change it again. What odds that Mone still isn’t telling the truth?
If she is telling the truth it would be a dramatic break with past practice.
You’re pretty committed to the alternative when you also employ people to lie on your behalf.
Couple of cracking quotes, though. … The Tory peer said she “wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes” when she repeatedly did not tell the truth about her involvement in PPE Medpro..
Her brief: … “To the extent that I unintentionally misled your colleagues and title, I offer my unqualified apology. I am a devout Christian, and hold to the values of truth and integrity as faithfully as I can.”..
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
One race against the best 1500m runners on the planet. But if you don’t like athletics, you won’t appreciate that I guess.
I'll watch athletics during the Olympics, but when you have 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m etc all getting run then I struggle to get worked up about any one of those individually as being much more or less special than others - though 100m I instinctively feel is the heavyweight of those.
He's a deserved champion, but I don't think a single athletic race trumps every other sporting achievement in the year.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
HMRC did some work a decade ago which suggested there is a big drop off after 50%
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
If hmrc ever tried taking two pound out of every 3 I earned I would say fuck it and make money illegaly and wouldn't pay them a penny. If they can act like a bandit then they can fuck right off and so will I
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
Agreed. One of the great problems with athletics as a sport is that a winning 100m looks identical to a losing 100m etc etc. Ditto swimming. And longer races are just boring to watch: the London marathon being a case in point. Team sports are vastly superior spectacles.
I think middle distance is best in this respect. These days I’d say 1,500 and 5,000m. Long enough to have visible tactics but short enough not to get boring.
I expect that, in the Commons, ‘economical with the actualite’ is for a while going to be replaced with ‘wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes’.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
Athletics is the most democratic form of individual competition there is. Being the fastest in the world over 1 mile/1500m always used to mean something, particularly given our heritage in the sport.
For the BBC to exclude Kerr is an example of them losing their way, and they surely wouldn't have done it if he scored more woke points.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
"...at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing..."
Being pedantic, this is not true.
A theoretical collective state might take 100% of everyone's earnings in tax and distribute it through free housing, food, clothing, transport, entertainment, education, infrastructure etc. etc. (public spending). The population wouldn't stop working, producing, and earning albeit on behalf of the Revenue, because (presumably) there would be sanctions against any who did, as there are today.
My point is a 100% tax rate would not result in zero tax revenue.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not advocate it for one moment.
(The laffer 'curve' btw is a clever conceit of utter fiction - I suspect said 'curve' is much closer to a straight line.)
So a footballer who didn’t win the World Cup wins SPOTY. Classic.
It’s about “personality” in sport isn’t it?
Not really - the ‘personality’ is a convenient way of saying sportsman/sportswoman.
And getting England to a World Cup final and winning the Golden Glove in the process is one of the biggest English sporting achievements this year.
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
SPOTY isn’t just England. Josh Kerr should have been on the list.
Meh.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
More impressive than winning the World Champioships 1500m? Really? Do you just not care for athletics?
No, I don't care for athletics.
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
One race against the best 1500m runners on the planet. But if you don’t like athletics, you won’t appreciate that I guess.
I'll watch athletics during the Olympics, but when you have 100m, 200m, 400m, 1500m etc all getting run then I struggle to get worked up about any one of those individually as being much more or less special than others - though 100m I instinctively feel is the heavyweight of those.
He's a deserved champion, but I don't think a single athletic race trumps every other sporting achievement in the year.
But does any sporting achievement trump all the others? In essence the whole thing is flawed. Like comparing eras within one sport.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
HMRC did some work a decade ago which suggested there is a big drop off after 50%
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
My effective tax rate is well north of 50%. Close to 54% when I last looked.
The devil is in the details but that analysis informed the 45+2 rate as the revenue maximising top rate
The Labour candidate is called “Gen Kitchen” and the LibDems have chosen a former police officer with the surname “Savage Gunn”. Looks like an interesting one….
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
HMRC did some work a decade ago which suggested there is a big drop off after 50%
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
I’d be happier with 50p at £100k than the current moronic system where they claim 40p but attack the PA. I agree that greater than that it gets rather imbalanced.
What a start! Windies chasing 268 and first ball is a golden duck. 🤣
Oh, hello Bart. I was just thinking I hadn't seen you in a while. Have you been taking a break or have I just failed to coincide with you lately?
A pedant would point out that 'first ball is a golden duck' is a tautology.
Been taking a break.
Only partially tautological, you can have both a golden duck that's not the first ball of an innings of course, as well as a first ball of an innings that's not a wicket so not a golden duck either.
This match has everything though, Windies making quick work of scoring now to stay in the match for now at least.
Well welcome back. What you say is true - you can have a golden duck which isn't first ball - but you can't have a first ball wicket which isn't a golden duck.
On another subject, I've just remembered mackerel. Mackerel is delicious. Though possibly it's the smoke you can taste and without that it would just taste fishy. And mackerel pate is delicious too, and very easy to make.
What if the 1st ball is a no-ball and you're out to the 2nd?
That would neither be a golden duck nor a wicket to the first ball of the innings, surely?
Comments
https://youtu.be/Tne50bE-ips?si=aSqJXeR5L147qSXX
Saved me a bloody fortune.
This is not a good match to be a specialist bowler.
I hate to think what's going to happen to Sam Curran and Liam Livingstone.
What you say is true - you can have a golden duck which isn't first ball - but you can't have a first ball wicket which isn't a golden duck.
On another subject, I've just remembered mackerel. Mackerel is delicious. Though possibly it's the smoke you can taste and without that it would just taste fishy.
And mackerel pate is delicious too, and very easy to make.
2. The cost of collection is trivial surely? Plug the figures in, run the calculation and either the employer deducts and pays the tax or the self-employed pay it direct to HMRC.
At the moment we have regional policies that are almost all decided from Westminster. This stifles regional competition.
The trouble is like most other devolution it means we need to be tolerant of regional differences in outcomes, and postcode lotteries.
Secondly, and more interestingly, she says that there is no requirement not to lie to the media. Oddly, I actually agree with her. Parliament and law courts yes, you are not allowed to lie. But to the press?
Although threatening the media when they were reporting the truth is a bit off…
Mone is correct, under current law.
Or a rugby player who didn't win the World Cup instead?
I actually watched Mary Earps at Old Trafford a couple of weeks back. It did not strike me that here was a particular outstanding goalkeeper. Her counterpart for City had a better game. But everyone has off days.
Payments need to be reported to HMRC via RTI and the money is paid directly to HMRC alongside payments for other employees
Supposedly the amount raised is £80m or so which is accurate if IR35 remains as it is because (as was pointed out elsewhere) it’s hard to switch to dividends if you are an employee being paid via PAYE
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s metro has Prince Andrew sweating over the Christmas holiday 💦
Had another England team won the World Cup then yes that'd be a bigger achievement, but none did.
I think what Earps did is more impressive that Kerr personally anyway, but its pretty moot.
Interesting too RefUK almost second to Labour amongst those renting in social/housing association properties and the Greens almost second to Labour amongst those renting privately
The US have enough assets to flatten a lot of Houthi gear but they had an intelligence shortfall on targets and not clear if thats been addressed yet. The whole multi national vessel protection operation is both standalone in nature but also provides an element of political cover for such a set of strikes.
The other question is Biden who seems to have a very cautious attitude on the degree of force he is inclined to authorise. This may mean, if it goes ahead, something small and reactive rather than maybe a few days of blasting the crap out of anything that may be hanging about the Yemeni coast.
But I can’t see that shifting enough votes to make it competitive, can you? The public hate the Tories, and his own voters don’t seem to like Sunak that much
Someone who wins a few golds, in multiple races, is more impressive but winning one race? Well done, its great going and they deserve the gold, but its not beating everyone else for being a successful sports person.
Apart from *the* Postcode Lottery, obviously…
Not quite sure how they manage still to claim that their misleading the press was ‘inadvertent’.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/19/lawyer-apologises-for-saying-michelle-mone-was-not-linked-to-ppe-firm
One for me, one for the pot seems reasonable. More than that begins to feel unfair.
https://x.com/alastairmeeks/status/1737236796566860174?s=46
Forget Con-Lab swing. This is an excellent test of recent RefUK polling accuracy. You’d expect them to do well - better than polls in fact. Interesting to see.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
This is just easily ignored guidelines from the government though, so tough talk and headlines like this is cheap sometimes, isn’t it?
… The Tory peer said she “wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes” when she repeatedly did not tell the truth about her involvement in PPE Medpro..
Her brief:
… “To the extent that I unintentionally misled your colleagues and title, I offer my unqualified apology. I am a devout Christian, and hold to the values of truth and integrity as faithfully as I can.”..
He's a deserved champion, but I don't think a single athletic race trumps every other sporting achievement in the year.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
For the BBC to exclude Kerr is an example of them losing their way, and they surely wouldn't have done it if he scored more woke points.
Being pedantic, this is not true.
A theoretical collective state might take 100% of everyone's earnings in tax and distribute it through free housing, food, clothing, transport, entertainment, education, infrastructure etc. etc. (public spending). The population wouldn't stop working, producing, and earning albeit on behalf of the Revenue, because (presumably) there would be sanctions against any who did, as there are today.
My point is a 100% tax rate would not result in zero tax revenue.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not advocate it for one moment.
(The laffer 'curve' btw is a clever conceit of utter fiction - I suspect said 'curve' is much closer to a straight line.)