There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Cuban Missile Crisis he did well, Bay of Pigs less so. He also cut taxes and grew the economy and began to move towards more civil rights for African Americans though LBJ did most of the work and created Medicare and Medicaid. JFK also avoided full on involvement in the Vietnam War which clouded LBJ's legacy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 of course campaigned to end the war in Vietnam and for a negotiated settlement
He gave LBJ a bit of a hospital pass on Vietnam though.
In that sense it was his luck in historical if not personal terms to have been shot before the Vietnam War really took off
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Corbyn spoke at the 2005 Conservative Conference???
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall Reflections on DNC on end of day 2
-Dems' change of tone on Trump noticeable. They're still invoking the dark forces he may yet unleash but doing it generally with a lighter touch. They're leaning into idea of mocking him as much as fearing him. -Very strong message discipline on the economy, especially from all the key speakers on class. Consistent emphasis on Harris' ordinary background, contrasting with wealth and privilege of Trump. More populist notes than in the past. -The two themes of this convention, save for Trump himself, are those class/economic issues and abortion. Everything else, even previous big ticket Dem issues like climate change v much in the background. -With Biden issue behind them, Dems continue to seem extremely ordered/disciplined. Crowd energy off the scale.
The contrast between a united party (which until now, hadn't really been the case for years) and a clearly disordered Republican Party, some of whose former officials appeared at the convention to endorse Harris, is pretty stark.
Given the state of many prisons, relocating them to new facilities out of town would make more sense than trying to refurbish them. Would likely produce much better conditions for the inmates as well.
Given the state of many prisons, relocating them to new facilities out of town would make more sense than trying to refurbish them. Would likely produce much better conditions for the inmates as well.
Oxford jail is actually a very interesting historical site and well worth a visit. The Malmaison is only one part of it.
There's no corresponding move towards Trump in the key state markets. Not that I can see anyway and I'm all over them.
I wonder if someone in the MAGA team is manipulating the market to deceive the orange man into thinking he's winning in order to quieten him down. It wouldn't cost much. Or am I wish-casting?
Seriously, I don't understand the market movement. There seems to be no news event or poll data to justify it.
Latest batch of polls look a little better for Trump? Electoral-vote gives him an edge in PA
Possibly. Latest [poll from Insider Advantage puts Trump 1% ahead but Harris is still 1.3% ahead on average. It's all very marginal. But so are the Betfair movements to fair.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
Those arguments are based on the ability to travel. Car ownership, taxis and public transport enable people to travel great distances, and these days mothers with prams and young children can be seen on trains, even late at night, as I can testify from observation.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
Depends on how you are measuring it. As a percentage of GDP, you could simply outgrow it and all sorted. Easy. /s
It would still be going up in absolute terms, however. And at the moment the deficit is roughly 5% of GDP. Outgrowing that will take some doing. The economy left by the Tories had good growth, low inflation and low unemployment. But the fiscal position is beyond dire. It is an absolute crisis.
If one is a diabetic and the chemists have run out because the trendsetters ...
(Not sure of current state of play, mind.)
One of my taxidrivers is a diabetic who went from insulin injections back to tablets because of a shortage. That (shortage of drugs) is now a thing in British healthcare.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall Reflections on DNC on end of day 2
-Dems' change of tone on Trump noticeable. They're still invoking the dark forces he may yet unleash but doing it generally with a lighter touch. They're leaning into idea of mocking him as much as fearing him. -Very strong message discipline on the economy, especially from all the key speakers on class. Consistent emphasis on Harris' ordinary background, contrasting with wealth and privilege of Trump. More populist notes than in the past. -The two themes of this convention, save for Trump himself, are those class/economic issues and abortion. Everything else, even previous big ticket Dem issues like climate change v much in the background. -With Biden issue behind them, Dems continue to seem extremely ordered/disciplined. Crowd energy off the scale.
The contrast between a united party (which until now, hadn't really been the case for years) and a clearly disordered Republican Party, some of whose former officials appeared at the convention to endorse Harris, is pretty stark.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
Those arguments are based on the ability to travel. Car ownership, taxis and public transport enable people to travel great distances, and these days mothers with prams and young children can be seen on trains, even late at night, as I can testify from observation.
What is the income profile of families of prisoners re: taxis (and probably trains), and how many of them can drive (25% of adults do not have a driving licence, 40% for disabled adults)?
The piece (https://archive.ph/tBPDu) also assumes that prison population needs to increase, and does not afaics acknowledge that nearly 20% of our current prison population are on remand - so in an efficient court system there is potential headroom anyway. It's not so long since the numbers on remand were 11-12% .
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Bill Clinton was a very good speaker indeed, at least back in the ‘90s. He’s a bit older and slower now, but still good.
Fun fact - Bill Clinton is two months younger than Donald Trump.
Yes. Trump, GW Bush, and Clinton, were all born within two months of each other in the summer of 1946.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
We are going to see more tax on fuel, higher CGT, restrictions on pension relief and still cuts in public spending. There really is no money left.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
If inflation is 2%, then a deficit of up to 2% is sustainable as it will not increase the debt as a proportion of GDP.
"Roald Dahl's special constable grandson is beaten up by pickpocketing gang after tackling thief on Westminster Bridge - while passers-by refuse to help"
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
Watched a little of the Obama speeches from last night. He remains a brilliant speaker - his timing is just spot on. For me, he's one of the great speakers though I'd rate Bill Clinton, at his prime, slightly higher.
Michelle is a decent speaker as well and plenty will be wondering if the wrong Obama served two terms in the WH.
I'm really struggling to think of a significant British political speech in the last decade. The UK Party Conferences aren't the same as the Democrat and Republican conventions which are quadrennial events.
Bill Clinton speaking tonight.
Cameron had a big speech at the 2005 Tory conference, Johnson and Corbyn made big speeches. Though by convention former PMs don't speak at their party conferences unlike former Presidents so as not to overshadow their successors as leader, albeit Thatcher did speak at a Tory rally in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuvi_TxC4XY
Corbyn spoke at the 2005 Conservative Conference???
He might as well have done for all the time he spent going through the commons divisions with them.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seem like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
And Nimyism would be off the charts in rural areas and market towns at the prospect of new prisons near them. Better modernise the existing prisons and add a few more in remote areas like Dartmoor or the Yorkshire moors
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
Those arguments are based on the ability to travel. Car ownership, taxis and public transport enable people to travel great distances, and these days mothers with prams and young children can be seen on trains, even late at night, as I can testify from observation.
What is the income profile of families of prisoners re: taxis (and probably trains), and how many of them can drive (25% of adults do not have a driving licence, 40% for disabled adults)?
The piece (https://archive.ph/tBPDu) also assumes that prison population needs to increase, and does not afaics acknowledge that nearly 20% of our current prison population are on remand - so in an efficient court system there is potential headroom anyway. It's not so long since the numbers on remand were 11-12% .
Re your first point Remote viewing to be provided for the poor via phone. Trains can handle wheelchair users. All these problems can be adjusted for.
Re your second point I'd like to have lots of headroom in the system. As time passes and the population rises, the number of prisoners fluctuates but the trend will be up. The status quo does not work, so it needs to be changed.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
If inflation is 2%, then a deficit of up to 2% is sustainable as it will not increase the debt as a proportion of GDP.
Only over the economic cycle, and only if debt isn't index-linked (some but not all of it is).
The problem is when you have eg periods of growth and then max out the deficit like that (eg 2002 to 2007 comes to mind) then whenever a recession inevitably comes and the deficit has only one way to go.
The responsible thing to do is have debt to GDP falling when you aren't in a recession, so it can go up when you are, and you're neutral over the cycle.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
Depends on how you are measuring it. As a percentage of GDP, you could simply outgrow it and all sorted. Easy. /s
It would still be going up in absolute terms, however. And at the moment the deficit is roughly 5% of GDP. Outgrowing that will take some doing. The economy left by the Tories had good growth, low inflation and low unemployment. But the fiscal position is beyond dire. It is an absolute crisis.
Not beyond dire. Growth and higher tax receipts that are greater than the increase in government spending would bring the deficit down. Even the debt interest is manageable. The bigger problem is that growing cost of pensions and healthcare puts a bigger and bigger strain on public finances.
Disapppinting borrowing numbers for July this morning and it now seems inevitable the sub editors will be throwing "Halloween Horror" all over the Chancellor's Autumn BUdget at the end of October.
With energy prices also starting to turn up again, it's not going to be pleasant but we all knew deep down this kind of reckoning would have to happen somewhere down the line. We went through a painful economic readjustment in the early 10s and it may be the mid 2020s will be a similar period.
I presume Reeves will be looking to get the public finances back under some measure of control and unlike Osborne and Alexander in 2011, I suspect there will be as much if not more emphasis on raising revenue from taxation than from cutting public spending.
We probably can't go from £87.2 billion of borrowing to zero in one year or possibly even one Parliament though it would be useful to see a sense of direction of travel. No one is saying we shouldn't borrow - borrowing for long term capital expenditure is perfectly reasonable - but we need to get that borrowing down to sensible levels and get the debt interest payments (£7 billion last month) down if we can.
Debt interest will only come down if we start to run a surplus and reduce debt. We are a very long way from that. As it is much of the debt that was borrowed at ultra low interest rates will have to be rolled over and borrowed at much higher rates over the next few years. The amount spent on debt interest is only going one way: up.
If inflation is 2%, then a deficit of up to 2% is sustainable as it will not increase the debt as a proportion of GDP.
Only over the economic cycle, and only if debt isn't index-linked (some but not all of it is).
The problem is when you have eg periods of growth and then max out the deficit like that (eg 2002 to 2007 comes to mind) then whenever a recession inevitably comes and the deficit has only one way to go.
The responsible thing to do is have debt to GDP falling when you aren't in a recession, so it can go up when you are, and you're neutral over the cycle.
It’s got 3m views on 10 hours. Youtube views not Twitter views.
Von also interviewed Bernie Sanders last week, that’s pretty impressive to get those two guests in quick succession.
It's an interesting interview. Theo Von is a good interviewer. He is sufficiently sycophantic to get Trump to relax though Trump bristled a bit when he learned that Von also got on with Bernie Sanders. That was a clue. I thought Trump looks old and tired and grey. He was hunched. But he still has his wits. He is pissed about Biden giving way to Harris. He claimed it was unconstitutional. I think he regrets agreeing to the debate that precipitated it.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
It's an asinine suggestion considering Hunts tax changes were a net tax rise, not a tax cut.
If you want to raise taxes then do the same as Hunt again, continue to freeze thresholds but cut NI. That way those working for a living are neutral as the thresholds and the rate cuts cancel out but it's a tax rise on unearned incomes.
Getting earned and unearned incomes taxed at the same rate is both fair and tax positive too.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
That would be daft. If you are going to have to raise an extra 2% on income, do it via income tax.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
Those arguments are based on the ability to travel. Car ownership, taxis and public transport enable people to travel great distances, and these days mothers with prams and young children can be seen on trains, even late at night, as I can testify from observation.
What is the income profile of families of prisoners re: taxis (and probably trains), and how many of them can drive (25% of adults do not have a driving licence, 40% for disabled adults)?
The piece (https://archive.ph/tBPDu) also assumes that prison population needs to increase, and does not afaics acknowledge that nearly 20% of our current prison population are on remand - so in an efficient court system there is potential headroom anyway. It's not so long since the numbers on remand were 11-12% .
Re your first point Remote viewing to be provided for the poor via phone. Trains can handle wheelchair users. All these problems can be adjusted for.
Re your second point I'd like to have lots of headroom in the system. As time passes and the population rises, the number of prisoners fluctuates but the trend will be up. The status quo does not work, so it needs to be changed.
I tend to agree with your second point, but I think an investment in a more efficient system (even such simple things as lawyers waiting for hours at Court) would give a more rapid change than the time to build extra capacity - which is at least 5-7 years.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
That would be daft. If you are going to have to raise an extra 2% on income, do it via income tax.
There is a difference between politically sensible and actually sensible (sadly).
As someone who has spent years investigating right-wing extremism, I keep being asked who organised the chaos, as if there is one simple answer.
But the recent disorder is more complex and has laid bare the anarchy of modern right-wing extremism, as well as the extent of its reach.
The truth is that no one organisation owned or organised the riots: they were bigger than that.
This lack of cohesion makes the situation more unpredictable and dangerous. For the authorities, there are so many potential rioters and potential targets, and a lack of obvious national organisations to disrupt.
By contrast, counter-demonstrations by anti-racism campaigners have been far more cohesive and organised.
I can't help that there is a bit of talking your own book here. You make a living by "investigating" the dark, mysterious world of right wing bigots. Turns out there is no master conspiracy after all but small numbers of right wing bigots and various hangers on up for a rumble who would find the organising of sex in a brothel somewhat problematic. So now their "chaotic nature" makes them even more unpredictable and dangerous. Just keep the paycheques coming.
I think that's backwards analysis TBH.
I think we start with "is this accurate" (personally my view is that it is quite accurate), and the established reliability or otherwise of the writer on the subject, and go from there with questions.
"This problem maybe doesn't exist because the writer wants to make money" strikes me as facile - admitted that's perhaps a caricature of your view.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I use it in the same way
It means “with due deference to”
And "with due deference to" means the same as "with all due respect" ... which means the same as "I think you're full of shit and dont know your arse from your elbow".
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
The spokesman’s po-faced comment “the choice of music had no deeper meaning”…
The Empire were Space Nazis....
Indeed.
While the prequels weren't great, one of the simplest but most powerful moments for me of the prequel trilogies is when Palpatine watches the clones in formation at the end of Attack of the Clones, and the Imperial March starts playing.
The allegory with Nazi footage from the 30s is very real.
Which will get hit by Human Rights judgements about distance between prisoners and families, IIRC.
And Nimyism would be off the charts in rural areas and market towns at the prospect of new prisons near them. Better modernise the existing prisons and add a few more in remote areas like Dartmoor or the Yorkshire moors
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
That would be daft. If you are going to have to raise an extra 2% on income, do it via income tax.
I would much rather see taxes raised on consumption (especially environmentally destructive consumption, which we want to discourage) than on work (which we want to encourage).
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Cuban Missile Crisis he did well, Bay of Pigs less so. He also cut taxes and grew the economy and began to move towards more civil rights for African Americans though LBJ did most of the work and created Medicare and Medicaid. JFK also avoided full on involvement in the Vietnam War which clouded LBJ's legacy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 of course campaigned to end the war in Vietnam and for a negotiated settlement
He gave LBJ a bit of a hospital pass on Vietnam though.
But that's my point about his learning from mistakes in office - and the truncated potential.
A detailed reading of the history very strongly suggests that he'd started to be deeply sceptical about the justification for US policy in Vietnam (and the majority hawkish view of his administration) and it's at least reasonably likely (probable in my view) that he'd have cut US losses, and pulled out, rather than escalating as LBJ did.
Another of the great disappointments of history is that I don't think we'll ever get Robert Caro's full take on that.
There's a whiff of corruption around Kennedy, isn't there, both personal and political.
I think youll find that goes back several generations and nobody on the Dem side was that worried.
It is bizarre to me that my parents generation of Democrats venerates the Kennedys. He was a very poor president, a poor human being but being good looking can apparently overcome everything.
Cuban Missile Crisis he did well, Bay of Pigs less so. He also cut taxes and grew the economy and began to move towards more civil rights for African Americans though LBJ did most of the work and created Medicare and Medicaid. JFK also avoided full on involvement in the Vietnam War which clouded LBJ's legacy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 of course campaigned to end the war in Vietnam and for a negotiated settlement
He gave LBJ a bit of a hospital pass on Vietnam though.
In that sense it was his luck in historical if not personal terms to have been shot before the Vietnam War really took off
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
It's an asinine suggestion considering Hunts tax changes were a net tax rise, not a tax cut.
If you want to raise taxes then do the same as Hunt again, continue to freeze thresholds but cut NI. That way those working for a living are neutral as the thresholds and the rate cuts cancel out but it's a tax rise on unearned incomes.
Getting earned and unearned incomes taxed at the same rate is both fair and tax positive too.
I think the argument is that increasing the headline rate of NI raises a lot of revenue in a straightforward way. To raise the same amount other ways requires a lot of distortion.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
That would be daft. If you are going to have to raise an extra 2% on income, do it via income tax.
There is a difference between politically sensible and actually sensible (sadly).
Unfortunately I suspect that you are right.
Though if a government can't decide to do things the sensible way when they have 5 years to run and a majority of a gazillion then where are we?
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I use it in the same way
It means “with due deference to”
And "with due deference to" means the same as "with all due respect" ... which means the same as "I think you're full of shit and dont know your arse from your elbow".
With all due respect, no, it doesn’t
It means “with due deference to” - there is no modifier or implied sarcasm
“With all due respect” implies specifically that the amount due is zero.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seems like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
People who claim to know more about this than I do point out the most straightforward and ultimately least distorting way to raise significant revenue is to revert Jeremy Hunt's cuts in NI, which were only implemented to set a trap for Labour. Avoiding the political trap was more important to Labour than the fiscal trap incurred through avoiding the other trap.
It's an asinine suggestion considering Hunts tax changes were a net tax rise, not a tax cut.
If you want to raise taxes then do the same as Hunt again, continue to freeze thresholds but cut NI. That way those working for a living are neutral as the thresholds and the rate cuts cancel out but it's a tax rise on unearned incomes.
Getting earned and unearned incomes taxed at the same rate is both fair and tax positive too.
I think the argument is that increasing the headline rate of NI raises a lot of revenue in a straightforward way. To raise the same amount other ways requires a lot of distortion.
It's bollocks though. Raising the headline rate of Income Tax raises more revenue than NI.
And freezing thresholds while cutting the headline rate raises more too, while shielding those working from paying more, the extra tax falls on those not working (or working while avoiding PAYE).
Last night I saw Cabaret, about the Kit Kat Club at the tail end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis.
I saw it with my wife, 14 year old son and 16 year old daughter. My daughter was utterly distraught at the end. And I must admit it was not entirely at all age appropriate. However, it was incredibly powerful, in two regards: Firstly, the willingness of ordinary people to shrug their shouders and says "it'll be OK, governments come and go", when bad bad things are coming; and secondly, how easy it is for ordinary people to do things they wouldn't normally do when they are desperate for money.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants a powerful, but somewhat distressing, evening out.
It’s got 3m views on 10 hours. Youtube views not Twitter views.
Von also interviewed Bernie Sanders last week, that’s pretty impressive to get those two guests in quick succession.
It's an interesting interview. Theo Von is a good interviewer. He is sufficiently sycophantic to get Trump to relax though Trump bristled a bit when he learned that Von also got on with Bernie Sanders. That was a clue. I thought Trump looks old and tired and grey. He was hunched. But he still has his wits. He is pissed about Biden giving way to Harris. He claimed it was unconstitutional. I think he regrets agreeing to the debate that precipitated it.
Among the many, many stupid and plain wrong things he's said, that's well up there on both counts.
He helped push another demonstrator into a police officer which "precipitated a physical confrontation involving the police [and] demonstrators", the prosecutor said.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I use it in the same way
It means “with due deference to”
And "with due deference to" means the same as "with all due respect" ... which means the same as "I think you're full of shit and dont know your arse from your elbow".
No, it doesn’t
It means “with due deference to” - there is no modifier or implied sarcasm
“With all due respect” implies specifically that the amount due is zero.
'Pace' pretty well literally means "I don't want to start a war with X, but". Pretty cool to express that in a single word.
If one is a diabetic and the chemists have run out because the trendsetters ...
(Not sure of current state of play, mind.)
One of my taxidrivers is a diabetic who went from insulin injections back to tablets because of a shortage. That (shortage of drugs) is now a thing in British healthcare.
There is a certain stigma about not being able to lose weight by willpower alone. The old tropes of 'move more and exercise less' etc. We see it on PB from time to time. Weight is incredibly difficult, and managing it is different for everyone. My wife has no issue staying the same, healthy weight. I struggle. I don't think she has more will power than me. But when she isn't hungry, she won't eat. And I will.
So yes, 'admitted' is him saying he's not just done it by being ace and having will power.
It’s got 3m views on 10 hours. Youtube views not Twitter views.
Von also interviewed Bernie Sanders last week, that’s pretty impressive to get those two guests in quick succession.
It's an interesting interview. Theo Von is a good interviewer. He is sufficiently sycophantic to get Trump to relax though Trump bristled a bit when he learned that Von also got on with Bernie Sanders. That was a clue. I thought Trump looks old and tired and grey. He was hunched. But he still has his wits. He is pissed about Biden giving way to Harris. He claimed it was unconstitutional. I think he regrets agreeing to the debate that precipitated it.
I think he assumed that once Biden had secured the delegates, he’d be the nominee.
Arguably it was Pelosi who got one over on him by forcing Biden out.
If one is a diabetic and the chemists have run out because the trendsetters ...
(Not sure of current state of play, mind.)
One of my taxidrivers is a diabetic who went from insulin injections back to tablets because of a shortage. That (shortage of drugs) is now a thing in British healthcare.
Its not really clear why. Its not just Brexit, its the impact of the pandemic among other things. What is surprising is why its not getting fixed. If there is a lack of something the market ought to correct.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Ah, the old Joseph Tainter theory about the Collapse of Complex Societies.
That's one of those theories that lead to smart people losing vast amount of money.
Gahh, I've just googled Joseph Tainter Collapse of Complex Societies. It looks like a very interesting rabbit hole that given enough life I would be more than happy to dive down. But I'm stuck with the Blob article so I can't go down that branch. Poo.
(however that request for a YouTube lecture is still sincere. )
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seem like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
Petrol price is no higher now (in cash terms, never mid real terms) than in 2012. There is headroom for a rise in fuel duty.
The graph in the header contradicts its concluding phrase, "the momentum, pace Betfair, is with Harris."
Why ?
see edit of that post
pace = latin term usually meaning 'despite' or 'notwithstanding'. Thus the sentence means "the momentum, notwithstanding Betfair, is with Harris."
(Why a working class lad like TSE can't stick to English is beyond me.)
I might be embarrassed here. I've used it for over a decade to mean "as per the arguments of" as per academic citation, and nobody's contradicted me. I shall check to make sure I've got it right.
I use it in the same way
It means “with due deference to”
And "with due deference to" means the same as "with all due respect" ... which means the same as "I think you're full of shit and dont know your arse from your elbow".
With all due respect, no, it doesn’t
It means “with due deference to” - there is no modifier or implied sarcasm
“With all due respect” implies specifically that the amount due is zero.
It was a joke.
Though a joke with an element of truth as to how TSE is using it.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seem like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
Petrol price is no higher now (in cash terms, never mid real terms) than in 2012. There is headroom for a rise in fuel duty.
Fuel prices, especially for diesel, are some of the single largest determinants of overall inflation. Everything you buy, whether from Tesco or Amazon, has to get to you somehow.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Reflecting on where Rachel Reeves will get her revenue from, are there still any expensive Rishi Hail Mary passes that have not been accounted for?
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
The March OBR borrowing forecasts are based on the assumption (provided by the Conservative government) that the fuel duty increases are booked in. Thus Rachel Reeves will have some political cover to increase fuel duty, on the basis that the Conservatives budget numbers assumed that they would as well.
Just 24% of 2024 Labour voters back a rise in fuel duty, the only taxes a majority of Labour voters back increasing are the top rate of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Most Conservative and Reform voters oppose even increasing those taxes
People don't like tax rises *shock*. Labour are in a tricky spot and the means testing of universal benefits and the carrying forward of "Tory tax rises" seem like the politically opportunistic things to do.
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
Petrol price is no higher now (in cash terms, never mid real terms) than in 2012. There is headroom for a rise in fuel duty.
Petrol prices were obscenely far too high in 2012 and should be lower, but equally the Treasury needs to detox from fleecing drivers and find someone else to fund its revenue as petrol tax is being phased out anyway so increasing it is just foolish.
As well as incredibly regressive taxing poor drivers who can't afford an EV while the well off can drive a Tesla untaxed.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Ah, the old Joseph Tainter theory about the Collapse of Complex Societies.
That's one of those theories that lead to smart people losing vast amount of money.
Seems to me the opposite is true. Complex societies are the best and most robust ones to live in.
There is an element of truth that when allowed, organisations react to problems by creating more process. Despite the provable fact that no amount of rigid process will solve all problems.
For a start he was on license (ie recalled to prison if commits a further offence) from I think a 20 year sentence for drug crime (cocaine smuggling) dating from 2009.
Then he had a leading role in starting the physical police - demonstrator confrontation.
Both will have been taken into account - I really think we want all sentencing remarks to be published for this set of trials.
Last night I saw Cabaret, about the Kit Kat Club at the tail end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis.
I saw it with my wife, 14 year old son and 16 year old daughter. My daughter was utterly distraught at the end. And I must admit it was not entirely at all age appropriate. However, it was incredibly powerful, in two regards: Firstly, the willingness of ordinary people to shrug their shouders and says "it'll be OK, governments come and go", when bad bad things are coming; and secondly, how easy it is for ordinary people to do things they wouldn't normally do when they are desperate for money.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants a powerful, but somewhat distressing, evening out.
It was Liza Minnelli’s greatest role.
It’s very cliched, but the “tomorrow belongs to me” scene is very disturbing (especially the distress of the old gentleman who doesn’t agree with the group at 1:30 and 2:20)
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Ah, the old Joseph Tainter theory about the Collapse of Complex Societies.
That's one of those theories that lead to smart people losing vast amount of money.
Seems to me the opposite is true. Complex societies are the best and most robust ones to live in.
Yes.
That's why people have lost millions of dollars (mistakenly) betting on its accuracy.
Aren't there different kind of complexity, though ?
And you can have societies which are complex in some respects (the bureaucracy, for example) and deficient others - (eg) a single party authoritarian dictatorship, as opposed to a pluralistic democracy.
Last night I saw Cabaret, about the Kit Kat Club at the tail end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis.
I saw it with my wife, 14 year old son and 16 year old daughter. My daughter was utterly distraught at the end. And I must admit it was not entirely at all age appropriate. However, it was incredibly powerful, in two regards: Firstly, the willingness of ordinary people to shrug their shouders and says "it'll be OK, governments come and go", when bad bad things are coming; and secondly, how easy it is for ordinary people to do things they wouldn't normally do when they are desperate for money.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants a powerful, but somewhat distressing, evening out.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
I've actually read "End Times" so I'm a little bit familiar with Turchin. Does Turchin necessarily contradict Tainter? I know Turchin cites elite overproduction as (one of) the conditions for society collapse, so is Turchin just describing the process?
Or am I talking bollocks (that's not a sarcastic question: I don't know Tainter)
I imagine and hope there's much more to the story than meets the eye, as chanting is not last I checked a crime.
Most of these stories have had more than meets the eye to them.
He admitted to violent disorder and was out on licence from a 20-year sentence for cocaine smuggling.
So, yeah, the headline is completely irresponsible. "67 year old convicted cocaine smuggler jailed after participating in recent riots" would be a lot more accurate, and wouldn't create the impression of a draconian crackdown.
As part of my "research" (reading and listening to YouTube lectures) on the Blob, may I recommend Prof Abby Innes (Associate Prof, European Institute at LSE) and her book "Late Soviet Britain: Why Materialist Utopias Fail".
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Ah, the old Joseph Tainter theory about the Collapse of Complex Societies.
That's one of those theories that lead to smart people losing vast amount of money.
Seems to me the opposite is true. Complex societies are the best and most robust ones to live in.
There is an element of truth that when allowed, organisations react to problems by creating more process. Despite the provable fact that no amount of rigid process will solve all problems.
Comments
The difference in energy is even greater.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1825943672363647362
Out in the countryside - yes. Which is why you’d probably go for a poor area that might welcome the jobs.
Which made me jump for a minute, before they explained that it’s not a prison any more, now a Malmaison hotel.
https://www.malmaison.com/locations/oxford/
Given the state of many prisons, relocating them to new facilities out of town would make more sense than trying to refurbish them. Would likely produce much better conditions for the inmates as well.
I'm thinking of the fuel duty "temporary" reduction of 5p per litre, which has cost the Govt £2.4bn in lost revenue each of the last 2-3 years. I do not recall this being mentioned at the last RR Statement.
I'd also suggest that the annual inflation rate cuts in real terms fuel duty every year since 2011 will also be ended - not sure about rollback - which would be worth another £1bn+ over 12 months. By putting back the inflation link for duty. One to watch is that this has been RPI not CPI in the past.
Justification would be pointing at the previous Govt, which is fair enough, and to investment plans in EV infrastructure / active travel - the latter having been cut off at the knees by the previous Govt.
There's also the whole VED fiasco to address, which Mr Hunt left as a problem for after the election. I'm not sure on that.
I think we may see the tax setup which makes HUGE crew-cab pickups cheaper to run than merely large crew-cabs, which was another strange Rishi pre-Election decision, unwound quite rapidly on safety grounds, which is needed.
Trump 2.02
Harris 2.1
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
The piece (https://archive.ph/tBPDu) also assumes that prison population needs to increase, and does not afaics acknowledge that nearly 20% of our current prison population are on remand - so in an efficient court system there is potential headroom anyway. It's not so long since the numbers on remand were 11-12% .
Coincidence?
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1826197624090751437
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13762179/Roald-Dahls-special-constable-grandson-beaten-pickpocketing-gang-tackling-thief-Westminster-Bridge-passers-refuse-help.html
Which bit of "There Really Really Is No Money Left" are Conservatives going to performatively fail to understand?
I also think they are vaguely sensible and likely to listen to Treasury advice on the effects of high CGT rates, council tax reform and so on. Will be a fascinating budget.
Remote viewing to be provided for the poor via phone. Trains can handle wheelchair users. All these problems can be adjusted for.
Re your second point
I'd like to have lots of headroom in the system. As time passes and the population rises, the number of prisoners fluctuates but the trend will be up. The status quo does not work, so it needs to be changed.
The problem is when you have eg periods of growth and then max out the deficit like that (eg 2002 to 2007 comes to mind) then whenever a recession inevitably comes and the deficit has only one way to go.
The responsible thing to do is have debt to GDP falling when you aren't in a recession, so it can go up when you are, and you're neutral over the cycle.
I thought Trump looks old and tired and grey. He was hunched. But he still has his wits. He is pissed about Biden giving way to Harris. He claimed it was unconstitutional. I think he regrets agreeing to the debate that precipitated it.
If you want to raise taxes then do the same as Hunt again, continue to freeze thresholds but cut NI. That way those working for a living are neutral as the thresholds and the rate cuts cancel out but it's a tax rise on unearned incomes.
Getting earned and unearned incomes taxed at the same rate is both fair and tax positive too.
It means “with due deference to”
I think we start with "is this accurate" (personally my view is that it is quite accurate), and the established reliability or otherwise of the writer on the subject, and go from there with questions.
"This problem maybe doesn't exist because the writer wants to make money" strikes me as facile - admitted that's perhaps a caricature of your view.
The TLDR is that in order to maintain control, the departmental structures that end up being created, whether fully publically owned as in a command economy or contracted out as in a market economy, end up so complex and unwieldy as to perpetually fail, and that both Thatcherites and Stalinists have to take refuge in the same denial of reality and retreat into fantasy to cope with that failure.
Here is a 25 minute lecture. Have fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_H_1Akaip0
Group sex is a singular event with multiple parties
An orgy is multiple co-located events with one of more participants in each
While the prequels weren't great, one of the simplest but most powerful moments for me of the prequel trilogies is when Palpatine watches the clones in formation at the end of Attack of the Clones, and the Imperial March starts playing.
The allegory with Nazi footage from the 30s is very real.
That's one of those theories that lead to smart people losing vast amount of money.
A detailed reading of the history very strongly suggests that he'd started to be deeply sceptical about the justification for US policy in Vietnam (and the majority hawkish view of his administration) and it's at least reasonably likely (probable in my view) that he'd have cut US losses, and pulled out, rather than escalating as LBJ did.
Another of the great disappointments of history is that I don't think we'll ever get Robert Caro's full take on that.
it was everyone's loss, IMO.
Though if a government can't decide to do things the sensible way when they have 5 years to run and a majority of a gazillion then where are we?
A 67-year-old man has been jailed after chanting "you're not English any more" at police officers during a violent demonstration in London."
https://x.com/BBCLondonNews/status/1825594604168622262
It means “with due deference to” - there is no modifier or implied sarcasm
“With all due respect” implies specifically that the amount due is zero.
And freezing thresholds while cutting the headline rate raises more too, while shielding those working from paying more, the extra tax falls on those not working (or working while avoiding PAYE).
I saw it with my wife, 14 year old son and 16 year old daughter. My daughter was utterly distraught at the end. And I must admit it was not entirely at all age appropriate. However, it was incredibly powerful, in two regards: Firstly, the willingness of ordinary people to shrug their shouders and says "it'll be OK, governments come and go", when bad bad things are coming; and secondly, how easy it is for ordinary people to do things they wouldn't normally do when they are desperate for money.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants a powerful, but somewhat distressing, evening out.
He helped push another demonstrator into a police officer which "precipitated a physical confrontation involving the police [and] demonstrators", the prosecutor said.
Pretty cool to express that in a single word.
Most of these stories have had more than meets the eye to them.
So yes, 'admitted' is him saying he's not just done it by being ace and having will power.
Arguably it was Pelosi who got one over on him by forcing Biden out.
(however that request for a YouTube lecture is still sincere. )
At least the 2nd test is next week!
Though a joke with an element of truth as to how TSE is using it.
As well as incredibly regressive taxing poor drivers who can't afford an EV while the well off can drive a Tesla untaxed.
That's why people have lost millions of dollars (mistakenly) betting on its accuracy.
Or isn't that how it works ?
Edit: oh yes, and stab each other with a special dart which they leave behind in the wound.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gq5492rzno
That said, Day 4 is looking very shaky, I’d plan to go Friday if I were you.
So everything gets slower and more expensive. https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
For a start he was on license (ie recalled to prison if commits a further offence) from I think a 20 year sentence for drug crime (cocaine smuggling) dating from 2009.
Then he had a leading role in starting the physical police - demonstrator confrontation.
Both will have been taken into account - I really think we want all sentencing remarks to be published for this set of trials.
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24527451.east-london-career-criminal-david-notley-jailed-whitehall-disorder/
It’s very cliched, but the “tomorrow belongs to me” scene is very disturbing (especially the distress of the old gentleman who doesn’t agree with the group at 1:30 and 2:20)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SDuHXTG3uyY
“Still think you can control them?”
And you can have societies which are complex in some respects (the bureaucracy, for example) and deficient others - (eg) a single party authoritarian dictatorship, as opposed to a pluralistic democracy.
Has anyone seen Vivek Ramaswamy?
He said countless times that the DNC was going to swap in Michelle Obama as Democratic nominee lol
https://x.com/iamgabesanchez/status/1826112697148256466
Or am I talking bollocks (that's not a sarcastic question: I don't know Tainter)
So, yeah, the headline is completely irresponsible. "67 year old convicted cocaine smuggler jailed after participating in recent riots" would be a lot more accurate, and wouldn't create the impression of a draconian crackdown.