We hear about the east and west coast, where the media and opinion formers live and are overwhelmingly Harris, but this is decided in the sun and rust belt, and the swing states are very rusty.
And no one likes to go there or talk or listen to them very much.
Yes, I'm annoyed by the UK media telling me what I think I want to hear - people in NY and California saying Trump is nuts. He may be, but it'd not usefully balanced reporting.
The difficulty is that there are no two ways about it, if you directly report the things Trump says without editorialising - which could be said to be as balanced as possible - then he is truly nuts. Every speech contains rambling non-sequiturs that from the mouth of anyone else would be evidence of some kind of cognitive impairment, not because they're foul but incoherent.
But it's Trump and he seems to have a weird ability of celebrity to bend reality around himself and partisanship is so strong, even lots of Republicans who think he's crackers will vote for him because it means government will be packed with their people. Trump's great attribute from the point of view of the US right, and evangelicals in particular was that no President before was quite so willing to trample norms to get their judges and officials in. The so-called 'Project 2025' is about completing that job, as they see it. But what he's often saying can't be covered with a straight face without pointing out it's quite mad.
From there, you are really trying to editorialise to explain it and hit the spot of where the election is to get the feel of why it is where it is. No doubt we'll see much more coverage from the seven swing states - from UK outlets - as the election gets closer. Most won't have sent out all their people and resources yet so will still be largely covering the he said/she said from Washington and NYC still rather than the deep dive reporting from the places that matter.
UK reporting of US politics is largely crap.
They often signpost what John Oliver and Jon Stewart are saying, which would be like referencing Joe or The Mash Report over here. Or that Channel 4 show with the Aussie with one leg.
I watched Stewart after Biden's disastrous debate and was really surprised at how brutal he was about it. I suppose that's why he has lasted so long - he's on the left but you don't get a sense he's particularly partisan.
He was likely distraught and angry that a saint (all those on the left are saints) had let him down
“Acceptable Under the Circumstances”, as the Daily Show put it.
I just hope Keir had access to a top notch power shower (however funded) after the meeting.
Are you not better than childish teenager 'jokes'? Why would he need a top notch power shower?
Have you not heard the expression, "I felt I needed a shower" from someone after they've had to meet a particularly nasty piece of work in the line of business?
Without toss-ups, Yougov has Harris winning 276-262, which is in line with current State polling.
Not too long ago, a lead of 3% could give you a 100 seat lead in the EC.
What would the EC score be if there were a 3% Republican lead?
Whatever one thinks about the idea that the flyover states shouldn't be overlooked, an electoral system where some bits of geography carry more clout per voter than others is an awfully rum one.
It makes sense for a Federal state as opposed to a Unitary state. Britain is a Unitary state, so it doesn't make much sense to us.
I couldn't say to what extent most Americans view themselves as citizens of their State, taking a collective decision as Texans, or Michiganders, who they would like to be President, as opposed to a collective decision as Americans. Arguably the US has become predominantly a Unitary state over the centuries, and the voting system for President is an anachronism from its Federal origins.
If the EU were to start electing [one of] its Presidents directly I think an Electoral College system might be the best place to start, rather than a simple direct vote.
The Swiss, for example, have an even less direct system, though. The Italian President is also indirectly elected. Also the German President.
I think there are lots of Presidents who aren't elected by a simple majority vote among adult citizens.
Don't be ridiculous. The German president is not elected by anything like the US electoral college. The German president is also largely ceremonial. There is no other democracy that has a national vote among adults to elect a president and then ignores the result of that vote and instead uses a US style electoral college.
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
'In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"'
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
'You'll have to pry my ill-informed, mis-remembered myths from my cold, dead hands.'
Good morning everyone, and thank-you for the header.
Yes, it's a real knife-edge.
On topic (not sure what happened), but an interesting detail is that Nebraska (as shown on the chart) is one of two states which do not award their Electoral College delegates all to the winner, but partly area by area (2 for statewide result, 3 for Congressional Districts). Nevada last time went 4:1 Republican due to one area being blue.
Trump has been staging a legal action to try and force Nevada to change to all or nothing, to gain that one delegate.
On balance it would imo be beneficial for the whole country to follow the Nebraska system. But that would turbocharge gerrymandering even further, perhaps.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
Poor Plaid Cymru
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going: "GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
So bets on the date of SLORG crossover? I don't actually think that'll happen because even a small Tory recovery will put paid to it. But it would fascinating to see.
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
'In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"'
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
'You'll have to pry my ill-informed, mis-remembered myths from my cold, dead hands.'
Words to live by.
Despite the outcome, Kids Company was one of many of these government funded charities. Are they delivering value for (government) money? Or are they providing halos for those who work in the charity sector? In this specific case were all the allegations false?
It also falls under the 'blob' theory. No one could doubt that Batshitjelly was 'one of us' and therefore would be protected.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
Poor Plaid Cymru
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going: "GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
Dear old Plaid are there in other. For them to make real progress out of other and into an acronym they really need Wales to get a bit bigger.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Yet despite only winning 60.3% of the vote in England between them, Labour and the Conservatives still won 463 of the 543 English seats (85%).
Using Baxter, I took 5% off both the Conservative and Labour figures and added 5% to both the Lib Dem and Reform figures. Even then, the Lab/Con duopoly won 493 seats compared with 533 in July.
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
Several things - how it feels also depends on what your skin is doing. Your body regulates its heat by how much heat it can lose when it's hot or retain when it's cold. Very roughly, external factors which influence this include wind (which makes it feel cooler, since heat can be conducted away from your body more easily) and humidity (which makes it feel hotter, because it reduces your ability to lose heat through evaporation of sweat, unless it's actually raining, which makes it feel cooler, for almost the same reason).
Think of a fan in a hot room. The fan doesn't actually lower the air temperature, it just moves the air around, meaning your body loses heat more easily. Or think of the effect of spraying a mist of water over you in a hot room - or even a cold room. It doesn't actually change the air temperature, it just makes it feel to you like it's cooler.
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
Lots of relevant factors including: humidity (invisible but critical), wind, cloud, indoors or outdoors, and presence or absence of direct sun. The actual 'thermometer' temperature tells you much less than you would think.
WRT the Senate, West Virginia is a certain Republican gain, Montana is probable, and the race has sharply narrowed in Ohio. If Trump wins Ohio by close to 10%, I can't see Brown holding his seat.
As against that, Florida and Texas are close, with pretty unpopular incumbents, but I'd still see narrowish wins for those incumbents - it would be different if this were mid-term under a Republican President. One that doesn't get mentioned as much as it should is Nebraska, where Deb Fischer is being pressed very closley by Dan Osborn, a genuine independent, who says he will not caucus with either party, if elected.
Without toss-ups, Yougov has Harris winning 276-262, which is in line with current State polling.
Not too long ago, a lead of 3% could give you a 100 seat lead in the EC.
What would the EC score be if there were a 3% Republican lead?
Whatever one thinks about the idea that the flyover states shouldn't be overlooked, an electoral system where some bits of geography carry more clout per voter than others is an awfully rum one.
It makes sense for a Federal state as opposed to a Unitary state. Britain is a Unitary state, so it doesn't make much sense to us.
I couldn't say to what extent most Americans view themselves as citizens of their State, taking a collective decision as Texans, or Michiganders, who they would like to be President, as opposed to a collective decision as Americans. Arguably the US has become predominantly a Unitary state over the centuries, and the voting system for President is an anachronism from its Federal origins.
If the EU were to start electing [one of] its Presidents directly I think an Electoral College system might be the best place to start, rather than a simple direct vote.
The Swiss, for example, have an even less direct system, though. The Italian President is also indirectly elected. Also the German President.
I think there are lots of Presidents who aren't elected by a simple majority vote among adult citizens.
Don't be ridiculous. The German president is not elected by anything like the US electoral college. The German president is also largely ceremonial. There is no other democracy that has a national vote among adults to elect a president and then ignores the result of that vote and instead uses a US style electoral college.
Without the EC though southern states might try and break away again as they did in the 1860s, California would almost always push the popular vote the Democrats way.
Even if Harris wins the EC and popular vote Trump will almost certainly win the vast majority of southern states.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
So bets on the date of SLORG crossover? I don't actually think that'll happen because even a small Tory recovery will put paid to it. But it would fascinating to see.
"SLORG CROSSOVER DRAMA". Among the headlines you will only see on PB.
As to it happening, we are astonishingly close. I agree we probably won't get there but in 2017 (Labcon at well over 80%) today's figures (54/46) looked impossible.
We hear about the east and west coast, where the media and opinion formers live and are overwhelmingly Harris, but this is decided in the sun and rust belt, and the swing states are very rusty.
And no one likes to go there or talk or listen to them very much.
Yes, I'm annoyed by the UK media telling me what I think I want to hear - people in NY and California saying Trump is nuts. He may be, but it'd not usefully balanced reporting.
So read US sources.
What's a good GOP source? I see the NYT, WP, etc., which have the same biases. I'd like to have a source that tells me what I don't want to know.
There is a site called GroundNews, it is a news aggregator that is supposed to do just that. It gives you links to stories categorised by left / right and also highlight stories which are opposite to your own preference / bias.
The Youtuber I'd most listen to who approves of Ground News is probably Perun.
I'm not really convinced about their use of a left-centre-right categorisation; we all know the weaknesses of that.
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
'In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"'
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
'You'll have to pry my ill-informed, mis-remembered myths from my cold, dead hands.'
Words to live by.
Despite the outcome, Kids Company was one of many of these government funded charities. Are they delivering value for (government) money? Or are they providing halos for those who work in the charity sector? In this specific case were all the allegations false?
It also falls under the 'blob' theory. No one could doubt that Batshitjelly was 'one of us' and therefore would be protected.
We hear about the east and west coast, where the media and opinion formers live and are overwhelmingly Harris, but this is decided in the sun and rust belt, and the swing states are very rusty.
And no one likes to go there or talk or listen to them very much.
Yes, I'm annoyed by the UK media telling me what I think I want to hear - people in NY and California saying Trump is nuts. He may be, but it'd not usefully balanced reporting.
So read US sources.
What's a good GOP source? I see the NYT, WP, etc., which have the same biases. I'd like to have a source that tells me what I don't want to know.
There are lots of links on the RCP website which have a clear GOP bias. Washington Examiner is a good example but there are many others. I find them somewhat fact light but it gives an idea of what Trump supporters are thinking.
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
I could quote you the relevant tax rules issued by HMRC but as a broad rule, if you are not an employee of the hospitality provider there is no BIK arising.
Why ale house accountants continue to post such rubbish is beyond me.
The provision of 10 Downing Street as accommodation is a BIK and if you google it you will find Sunaks broad tax details
Thanks for your clarification but no need to be a partisan pompous dick about it.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
We hear about the east and west coast, where the media and opinion formers live and are overwhelmingly Harris, but this is decided in the sun and rust belt, and the swing states are very rusty.
And no one likes to go there or talk or listen to them very much.
Yes, I'm annoyed by the UK media telling me what I think I want to hear - people in NY and California saying Trump is nuts. He may be, but it'd not usefully balanced reporting.
The difficulty is that there are no two ways about it, if you directly report the things Trump says without editorialising - which could be said to be as balanced as possible - then he is truly nuts. Every speech contains rambling non-sequiturs that from the mouth of anyone else would be evidence of some kind of cognitive impairment, not because they're foul but incoherent.
But it's Trump and he seems to have a weird ability of celebrity to bend reality around himself and partisanship is so strong, even lots of Republicans who think he's crackers will vote for him because it means government will be packed with their people. Trump's great attribute from the point of view of the US right, and evangelicals in particular was that no President before was quite so willing to trample norms to get their judges and officials in. The so-called 'Project 2025' is about completing that job, as they see it. But what he's often saying can't be covered with a straight face without pointing out it's quite mad.
From there, you are really trying to editorialise to explain it and hit the spot of where the election is to get the feel of why it is where it is. No doubt we'll see much more coverage from the seven swing states - from UK outlets - as the election gets closer. Most won't have sent out all their people and resources yet so will still be largely covering the he said/she said from Washington and NYC still rather than the deep dive reporting from the places that matter.
UK reporting of US politics is largely crap.
US reporting of US politics is largely crap.
and don't even think about watching UK coverage of US election night.....
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
Poor Plaid Cymru
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going: "GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
Dear old Plaid are there in other. For them to make real progress out of other and into an acronym they really need Wales to get a bit bigger.
But on reflection I prefer SPLORG so I think we'll stick with that. Have tweeted on it to embed the acronym in the public consciousness (well, the public consciousness of the half dozen people who might read it).
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
I could quote you the relevant tax rules issued by HMRC but as a broad rule, if you are not an employee of the hospitality provider there is no BIK arising.
Why ale house accountants continue to post such rubbish is beyond me.
The provision of 10 Downing Street as accommodation is a BIK and if you google it you will find Sunaks broad tax details
Thanks for your clarification but no need to be a partisan pompous dick about it.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
It's to do with both wind speed (cold air moving will conduct more heat from your body than still air) and humidity (damp air has a greater heat capacity than dry air). So a windy, damp 6 degrees morning probably feels colder than one with dry, still air at -1 degrees.
I expect this would get watered down in the face of reality, but the key number to watch here is 20% on imports of goods from everywhere (there are already eye watering tariffs on many Chinese-made goods). Everywhere meaning, in practical terms, 3 big exporting locations:
1. The EU 2. Mexico, via the vast Maquiladora economy 3. East Asia: Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan
Less impact on primary or agricultural exporters as they already face significant tariff and non-tariff barriers.
What would that mean for our and our neighbours' economies? Short term I would expect a fall in GBP, EUR, JPY and other exposed currencies, but probably less of a fall in GBP as we export more services and fewer goods to the US. Our service exports should hopefully be protected, although they are already partly hit by the BEAT within multinationals.
Medium term we potentially get into a position of US inflation and European deflation as surplus production makes its way through the economy. Then recession almost everywhere (including the UK as a decline in trade intensity puts pressure on financial services).
Long term it might ordinarily mean a Democrat landslide in the 2026 midterms and probably a Dem president in 2028, though by that point Trump would probably have progressed far enough in project 2025 to ensure that's no longer a practical possibility.
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
Casino doesn't understand what embezzlement means. He believes the VAT on school fees is embezzlement
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"
.
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
An interesting Ukraine the Latest (30 min+) conversation about the weakness of Western analysis in the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, why so many missed it, and why so many were wrong about Ukraine's ability to resist.
Interesting on the hollowing out of analytical institutions after the Cold War, obsession with Russia, and also on Academia vs Thinktanks.
Today, we talk to two of the most high profile analysts of the war about their new report into how rectifying systematic failures in Western analysis and intelligence is vital for preventing future conflict.
Contributors:
Eliot A. Cohen (Former Counsellor of the United States Department of State). @EliotACohen on X. Phillips O'Brien (Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews). @PhillipsPOBrien on X.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
I could quote you the relevant tax rules issued by HMRC but as a broad rule, if you are not an employee of the hospitality provider there is no BIK arising.
Why ale house accountants continue to post such rubbish is beyond me.
The provision of 10 Downing Street as accommodation is a BIK and if you google it you will find Sunaks broad tax details
Thanks for your clarification but no need to be a partisan pompous dick about it.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
Actuarial work is said to be for those who find accountancy too stimulating...
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"
.
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
How much truth was there in those allegations?
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
Without toss-ups, Yougov has Harris winning 276-262, which is in line with current State polling.
Not too long ago, a lead of 3% could give you a 100 seat lead in the EC.
What would the EC score be if there were a 3% Republican lead?
Whatever one thinks about the idea that the flyover states shouldn't be overlooked, an electoral system where some bits of geography carry more clout per voter than others is an awfully rum one.
It makes sense for a Federal state as opposed to a Unitary state. Britain is a Unitary state, so it doesn't make much sense to us.
I couldn't say to what extent most Americans view themselves as citizens of their State, taking a collective decision as Texans, or Michiganders, who they would like to be President, as opposed to a collective decision as Americans. Arguably the US has become predominantly a Unitary state over the centuries, and the voting system for President is an anachronism from its Federal origins.
If the EU were to start electing [one of] its Presidents directly I think an Electoral College system might be the best place to start, rather than a simple direct vote.
The Swiss, for example, have an even less direct system, though. The Italian President is also indirectly elected. Also the German President.
I think there are lots of Presidents who aren't elected by a simple majority vote among adult citizens.
But those tend to be Presidents with relatively little power, unlike the US President. The Swiss, German and Italian President are nothing like the US President.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Perhaps some grifter psychology in there too. They think selling is winning and buying is for suckers (which in their game it is). Extending to international trade this means if you buy from a foreign country that country has 'won' and you have 'lost'.
Sounds like Starmer and Trump had an interesting lunch yesterday. Trump had some positive words for Sir Keir saying "I actually think he’s very nice. He ran a great race, he did very well, it’s very early, he’s very popular."
He also praised Nige too unsurprisingly 'Mr Trump went on to praise Reform UK leader Nigel Farage as well, saying: "I think Nigel is great, I've known him for a long time."
"He had a great election too, picked up a lot of seats, more seats than he was allowed to have actually.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
Poor Plaid Cymru
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going: "GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
Dear old Plaid are there in other. For them to make real progress out of other and into an acronym they really need Wales to get a bit bigger.
But on reflection I prefer SPLORG so I think we'll stick with that. Have tweeted on it to embed the acronym in the public consciousness (well, the public consciousness of the half dozen people who might read it).
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would my top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Something else no journalist has pointed out is that gifting rules are different when you're in government. These gifts are historical as Starmer would no longer be able take them now he's in government. The Bribery Act applies to the function the receiver performs, at the time simple MP, and you have to show the bribe was intended to, or could be seen to, subvert the performance of that function. Starmer appears to have received this stuff within policy. You could make a bribery case against him, but not straightforward, I think.
The public can rightly have no interest in any of the legalities, and think this doesn't smell right. And that's fine. If you can't cope with that you shouldn't be a politician.
I think the old dictum is right - its always the cover-up that's the issue. The story about Starmer's use of Alli's flat keeps changing. Why is that?
The inability of Guido to understand something doesn't mean the "story [...] keeps changing".
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
It's to do with both wind speed (cold air moving will conduct more heat from your body than still air) and humidity (damp air has a greater heat capacity than dry air). So a windy, damp 6 degrees morning probably feels colder than one with dry, still air at -1 degrees.
"Feels like" makes it sound subjective, when I assume what is actually meant is the equivalent cooling rate in W (or more probably W/m^2), a measurable number. It would be interesting (for me at least) to know the conditions assumed and how the the values were calculated/calibrated.
It's shockingly disrepectful to call Trump supporters with legitimate concerns batshit crazy.
Also:
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski As Tucker Carlson’s tour rolls on, headliner Roseanne Barr tells a cheering audience that the elites are eating babies and are vampires who drink blood and love the taste of human flesh but Trump is going to stop it.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
Mercantilism is a very easy concept for someone with not much understanding of economics to get their head around. It’s essentially buy cheap and sell dear, on a global basis. (Though Ricardo is also fairly easy to explain).
I can see that for someone with a background as a property investor it also has some logic. Unfortunately as post war Brazil, Argentina and India demonstrated, it doesn’t really work if you try to apply it on an economy-wide basis.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
Slorg is a great acronym!
There is still an issue about whether it should be SLORG or SPLORG. I suppose SPLORG is more inclusive, and perhaps memorable.
Though I hesitate to suggest what the joint programme of the coming SPLORG coalition government (maybe with confidence and supply from SF and DUP) would look like.
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case:
In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity"
.
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
How much truth was there in those allegations?
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
CUT——————————-
Quotes seem to be broken
The Guardian has a story all prepared, on how the Evul Tories had collapsed the charity. Then Cameron and Co approved a tranche of money. They knew it was conditional and monitored. In addition, the charity was going belly up. So the money would never get there.
The cause of the failure was a completely chaotic lack of any system within the charity. You would fail to run a household like that, let alone a charity caring for large numbers of vulnerable children.
Without toss-ups, Yougov has Harris winning 276-262, which is in line with current State polling.
Not too long ago, a lead of 3% could give you a 100 seat lead in the EC.
What would the EC score be if there were a 3% Republican lead?
Whatever one thinks about the idea that the flyover states shouldn't be overlooked, an electoral system where some bits of geography carry more clout per voter than others is an awfully rum one.
It makes sense for a Federal state as opposed to a Unitary state. Britain is a Unitary state, so it doesn't make much sense to us.
I couldn't say to what extent most Americans view themselves as citizens of their State, taking a collective decision as Texans, or Michiganders, who they would like to be President, as opposed to a collective decision as Americans. Arguably the US has become predominantly a Unitary state over the centuries, and the voting system for President is an anachronism from its Federal origins.
If the EU were to start electing [one of] its Presidents directly I think an Electoral College system might be the best place to start, rather than a simple direct vote.
The Swiss, for example, have an even less direct system, though. The Italian President is also indirectly elected. Also the German President.
I think there are lots of Presidents who aren't elected by a simple majority vote among adult citizens.
Don't be ridiculous. The German president is not elected by anything like the US electoral college. The German president is also largely ceremonial. There is no other democracy that has a national vote among adults to elect a president and then ignores the result of that vote and instead uses a US style electoral college.
Without the EC though southern states might try and break away again as they did in the 1860s, California would almost always push the popular vote the Democrats way.
Even if Harris wins the EC and popular vote Trump will almost certainly win the vast majority of southern states.
If the southern states tried to break away again, they would be as successful at they were in the 1860s.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
Poor Plaid Cymru
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going: "GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
Dear old Plaid are there in other. For them to make real progress out of other and into an acronym they really need Wales to get a bit bigger.
But on reflection I prefer SPLORG so I think we'll stick with that. Have tweeted on it to embed the acronym in the public consciousness (well, the public consciousness of the half dozen people who might read it).
Sounds a bit sinister to me.
The SPLORG are taking over
I am more than happy with SPLORG. If I may offer a retrofitted justification: to qualify as a named letter (aside from 'others') in SPLORG you must a) not be Lab or Con, b) be a party, and c) have at least two MPs in mainland Britain. If you don't fit any of those, you are included with 'Others'. Hence PC qualifies but, say, the SDP, or Jeremy Corbyn, or Shockhat Adam do not.
If we get additional parties which meet those criteria and they do not make a pleasing acronym - well, we might have to change the rules.
Not a bad ad from Harris. She did an early one about the Proud Boys and Trumps part in the riots which was more powerful. It showed the venality and chaos he's likely to bring to Office
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case: In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity".
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
How much truth was there in those allegations?
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
I don't know much about Kids Company, other than what I read at the time and subsequently the Batmanghelidjh obituary (in Guardian, maybe) that led me to the judges comments and changed my view.
But I do wish to apologise for forgetting that using blockquotes for purposes other than quoting other posts confused he hell out of Vanilla! (I've edited them out of this post)
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
I could quote you the relevant tax rules issued by HMRC but as a broad rule, if you are not an employee of the hospitality provider there is no BIK arising.
Why ale house accountants continue to post such rubbish is beyond me.
The provision of 10 Downing Street as accommodation is a BIK and if you google it you will find Sunaks broad tax details
Thanks for your clarification but no need to be a partisan pompous dick about it.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
In your view != what the law says.
Is this not a site where people give opinions? It might be a loophole that Starmer wriggles his hypocritical, but nontheless well dressed person through. If a business person would get hammered for BIK for trying to put his/her suits through the books, the same should apply to our politicians. Personally I couldn't give a shit about the football attendance (politicians go to these types of events), it is the greedy tasteless extravagance on clothjng and the double standard that is clearly being demonstrated.
6 months ago they'd have been dismayed at polling under 40% and Conservatives under 30%. It's going to be a mess unless the economy picks up substantially in the next 4 years.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
Slorg is a great acronym!
There is still an issue about whether it should be SLORG or SPLORG. I suppose SPLORG is more inclusive, and perhaps memorable.
Though I hesitate to suggest what the joint programme of the coming SPLORG coalition government (maybe with confidence and supply from SF and DUP) would look like.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Perhaps some grifter psychology in there too. They think selling is winning and buying is for suckers (which in their game it is). Extending to international trade this means if you buy from a foreign country that country has 'won' and you have 'lost'.
My dad was a reasonably successful SME businessman. He employed a few people, built a few things; knocked down a few more.
He said that the best sort of deal you could do was one where both parties left thinking they had a good deal. His business relied on people coming back with more jobs. If they felt he was fair, then they would do so. If they felt he was unfair, they were far less likely to. But that way, you eventually run out of clients.
Occasionally he would make a mistake with an estimate and the job would cost more, and most times the client would know, that as he was fair, he was not screwing with them. Other times he would come in under estimate, and he would sometimes slightly reduce the bill as a result. He had relationships with clients that lasted forty or more years.
Oh, and honesty as well. If you fuck up, explain why the job went wrong, clearly and honestly.
Did he make as much money on each job? No. Did he make more money in the long run? Probably.
Trump's magic has been to grift from the same people over and over again.
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
I could quote you the relevant tax rules issued by HMRC but as a broad rule, if you are not an employee of the hospitality provider there is no BIK arising.
Why ale house accountants continue to post such rubbish is beyond me.
The provision of 10 Downing Street as accommodation is a BIK and if you google it you will find Sunaks broad tax details
Thanks for your clarification but no need to be a partisan pompous dick about it.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
In your view != what the law says.
Is this not a site where people give opinions? It might be a loophole that Starmer wriggles his hypocritical, but nontheless well dressed person through. If a business person would get hammered for BIK for trying to put his/her suits through the books, the same should apply to our politicians. Personally I couldn't give a shit about the football attendance (politicians go to these types of events), it is the greedy tasteless extravagance on clothjng and the double standard that is clearly being demonstrated.
6 months ago they'd have been dismayed at polling under 40% and Conservatives under 30%. It's going to be a mess unless the economy picks up substantially in the next 4 years.
If the economy isn't showing some signs of sustained perkiness by 2028, we're all in a lot of trouble.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
Mercantilism is a very easy concept for someone with not much understanding of economics to get their head around. It’s essentially buy cheap and sell dear, on a global basis. (Though Ricardo is also fairly easy to explain).
I can see that for someone with a background as a property investor it also has some logic. Unfortunately as post war Brazil, Argentina and India demonstrated, it doesn’t really work if you try to apply it on an economy-wide basis.
Perhaps in infant school our children could begin to learn three things which are the opposite of mercantilism:
The invisible hand of self interest The law of comparative advantage and The more prosperous other countries are, the more they will want to buy your goods and services.
Just seen on the last thread the comment that Kids Company should have been a wake up call re charities.
I thought that was an issue long resolved. From Wikipedia (but largely quoting the judge in the court case: In February 2021, after a three-year case, Mrs Justice Falk in the High Court rejected the Official Receiver's assertion that Batmanghelidjh and the other trustees were unfit to be directors of a charity, saying "Most charities would, I think, be delighted to have available to them individuals with the abilities and experience that the trustees in this case possess. It is vital that the actions of public bodies do not have the effect of dissuading able and experienced individuals from becoming or remaining charity trustees".[11] She said: "[A] restructuring plan was agreed and a further government grant was awarded, however the charity was forced to close after sexual assault allegations [the same week]. The charity was exonerated following a police investigation - but by that time it was too late. Had it not been for those unfounded allegations, it is more likely than not that the restructuring would have succeeded and the charity would have survived."[12] The judge found that there had been "no dishonesty, bad faith or personal gain on the part of Batmanghelidjh or the trustees ... Nor had there been any inappropriate expenditure on children assisted by the charity".
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
How much truth was there in those allegations?
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
I don't know much about Kids Company, other than what I read at the time and subsequently the Batmanghelidjh obituary (in Guardian, maybe) that led me to the judges comments and changed my view.
But I do wish to apologise for forgetting that using blockquotes for purposes other than quoting other posts confused he hell out of Vanilla! (I've edited them out of this post)
She may well have been a nice person.
She was demonstrably utterly unfit to run a fair sized charity. That doesn't mean anything bad about her - tons of people don't have a systematic frame of mind.
The trustees who didn't do anything are a sack of shits, in my opinion.
I am moderately closely involved with a charity. At the monthly meetings, the trustees turn up. They have copies of the financials and ask questions about why XY is up and Y is down. And the compliance with child safe guarding rules. Plus a number of the trustees do work in and around the charity - so they have a very good idea of the state of things. Involved is a nice word, I think.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
Slorg is a great acronym!
There is still an issue about whether it should be SLORG or SPLORG. I suppose SPLORG is more inclusive, and perhaps memorable.
Though I hesitate to suggest what the joint programme of the coming SPLORG coalition government (maybe with confidence and supply from SF and DUP) would look like.
SF and the TUV would make STFU, which is generally a good approach to NI politics.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
So bets on the date of SLORG crossover? I don't actually think that'll happen because even a small Tory recovery will put paid to it. But it would fascinating to see.
A pedant writes: as SLORG=100%-Labcon, a graph of SLORG vs Labcon would be two mirrored lines. You just need to depict Labcon and see when it dips below 50%.
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
It's to do with both wind speed (cold air moving will conduct more heat from your body than still air) and humidity (damp air has a greater heat capacity than dry air). So a windy, damp 6 degrees morning probably feels colder than one with dry, still air at -1 degrees.
"Feels like" makes it sound subjective, when I assume what is actually meant is the equivalent cooling rate in W (or more probably W/m^2), a measurable number. It would be interesting (for me at least) to know the conditions assumed and how the the values were calculated/calibrated.
Yes, I've never heard it fully explained, either - and the humidity factor is usually mentioned only in the context of dangerously high temperatures.
Point of order. Starmer hasn't embezzled anything. Unlike people associated with the Conservative Party who stole £15 billion from the State in dodgy Covid contracts.
No journalists (to my knowledge) have pointed out that if you run a business and received £100k worth of freebies you might be in trouble under the Bribery Act and you almost certainly would have top pay Benefit in Kind tax. As he is already in the 45% bracket it means he ought to get a tax bill of £45k
Any accountants in that want to comment? Am I right?
MPs are a unique problem. They are neither businesses nor employees nor political parties. This site is just creaming with bad faith, low information takes on this whole issue.
My phone tells me that it feels 8 degrees colder than it is.
Better get it a nice case to keep it warm
This whole "feels colder/hotter" than the actual temperature does my head in. The temperature is 17 degrees but it will feel like 18 degrees.
So what's going on there, then.
It's to do with both wind speed (cold air moving will conduct more heat from your body than still air) and humidity (damp air has a greater heat capacity than dry air). So a windy, damp 6 degrees morning probably feels colder than one with dry, still air at -1 degrees.
"Feels like" makes it sound subjective, when I assume what is actually meant is the equivalent cooling rate in W (or more probably W/m^2), a measurable number. It would be interesting (for me at least) to know the conditions assumed and how the the values were calculated/calibrated.
Yes, I've never heard it fully explained, either - and the humidity factor is usually mentioned only in the context of dangerously high temperatures.
For wind chill, an old rule of thumb was that 1mph of wind was effectively 1 Fahrenheit. So f you were in a cold place and there was a 20mph wind, the effective temperature was -20F off the still air reading.
I just hope Keir had access to a top notch power shower (however funded) after the meeting.
Are you not better than childish teenager 'jokes'? Why would he need a top notch power shower?
Have you not heard the expression, "I felt I needed a shower" from someone after they've had to meet a particularly nasty piece of work in the line of business?
Personally no, perhaps the people I know and work with are just very professional in how they conduct themselves.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Perhaps some grifter psychology in there too. They think selling is winning and buying is for suckers (which in their game it is). Extending to international trade this means if you buy from a foreign country that country has 'won' and you have 'lost'.
I think its slightly different.
In grifter mentality buying is for losers and winners get given stuff for free.
So by adding tariffs the other side has to 'give' you that extra money and so you are the winner.
No swing between Labour and Tory on that Techne poll but a 3% swing from Labour to Reform since the GE which would see Reform gain Llanelli and Sittingbourne and Sheppey and Norfolk SW from Labour. Reform would also gain Hornchurch and Upminster from the Tories.
We hear about the east and west coast, where the media and opinion formers live and are overwhelmingly Harris, but this is decided in the sun and rust belt, and the swing states are very rusty.
And no one likes to go there or talk or listen to them very much.
Yes, I'm annoyed by the UK media telling me what I think I want to hear - people in NY and California saying Trump is nuts. He may be, but it'd not usefully balanced reporting.
I do wonder if the people in NY / California see different US news compared to us. From my times in New York I very much doubt it the news was either very local or superfluous national news.
The UK version of US news is very much the NY / CA version of US news.
The swing states and online sees very different news, in the online arena there are two groups basically talking straight past each other who agree on pretty much nothing except today being Friday.
It's shockingly disrepectful to call Trump supporters with legitimate concerns batshit crazy.
Also:
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski As Tucker Carlson’s tour rolls on, headliner Roseanne Barr tells a cheering audience that the elites are eating babies and are vampires who drink blood and love the taste of human flesh but Trump is going to stop it.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Perhaps some grifter psychology in there too. They think selling is winning and buying is for suckers (which in their game it is). Extending to international trade this means if you buy from a foreign country that country has 'won' and you have 'lost'.
My dad was a reasonably successful SME businessman. He employed a few people, built a few things; knocked down a few more.
He said that the best sort of deal you could do was one where both parties left thinking they had a good deal. His business relied on people coming back with more jobs. If they felt he was fair, then they would do so. If they felt he was unfair, they were far less likely to. But that way, you eventually run out of clients.
Occasionally he would make a mistake with an estimate and the job would cost more, and most times the client would know, that as he was fair, he was not screwing with them. Other times he would come in under estimate, and he would sometimes slightly reduce the bill as a result. He had relationships with clients that lasted forty or more years.
Oh, and honesty as well. If you fuck up, explain why the job went wrong, clearly and honestly.
Did he make as much money on each job? No. Did he make more money in the long run? Probably.
Trump's magic has been to grift from the same people over and over again.
When I was growing up in Oxford, there was a shitty nightclub in the Westgate centre.
This went bust on a regular basis, and then reappeared. Strangely the ownership was moderately consistent.
The ability to order stuff on account, for the various reincarnations, was startling.
The popular theories were either (1) Brown envelopes, (2) The managers at the various breweries etc changed and their successors didn't have a clue.
I just hope Keir had access to a top notch power shower (however funded) after the meeting.
Are you not better than childish teenager 'jokes'? Why would he need a top notch power shower?
Have you not heard the expression, "I felt I needed a shower" from someone after they've had to meet a particularly nasty piece of work in the line of business?
Personally no, perhaps the people I know and work with are just very professional in how they conduct themselves.
It's just a variation on "you should count your fingers after you've shaken hands with him".
It's shockingly disrepectful to call Trump supporters with legitimate concerns batshit crazy.
Also:
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski As Tucker Carlson’s tour rolls on, headliner Roseanne Barr tells a cheering audience that the elites are eating babies and are vampires who drink blood and love the taste of human flesh but Trump is going to stop it.
"The NHS must no longer “nick” people from abroad to staff the health service, Wes Streeting has said.
The Health Secretary has pledged that he will reduce the NHS’ “overreliance” on migrants to staff the health service and will train “our own homegrown talent”."
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
Yes, bananas.
The EU taxes imports of roasted coffee, a purely protectionist measure.
"The NHS must no longer “nick” people from abroad to staff the health service, Wes Streeting has said.
The Health Secretary has pledged that he will reduce the NHS’ “overreliance” on migrants to staff the health service and will train “our own homegrown talent”."
Well, it does if you follow five or six obsessive bores on PB! I honestly haven’t heard a single person mention FROCKGATE IRL.
It's Covent Garden-Gate!
This is the rather bizarre post on the last thread in reply to my admission that during the GE campaign I had given Labour £100.....
Jessop:
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
Without toss-ups, Yougov has Harris winning 276-262, which is in line with current State polling.
Not too long ago, a lead of 3% could give you a 100 seat lead in the EC.
What would the EC score be if there were a 3% Republican lead?
Whatever one thinks about the idea that the flyover states shouldn't be overlooked, an electoral system where some bits of geography carry more clout per voter than others is an awfully rum one.
It makes sense for a Federal state as opposed to a Unitary state. Britain is a Unitary state, so it doesn't make much sense to us.
I couldn't say to what extent most Americans view themselves as citizens of their State, taking a collective decision as Texans, or Michiganders, who they would like to be President, as opposed to a collective decision as Americans. Arguably the US has become predominantly a Unitary state over the centuries, and the voting system for President is an anachronism from its Federal origins.
If the EU were to start electing [one of] its Presidents directly I think an Electoral College system might be the best place to start, rather than a simple direct vote.
The Swiss, for example, have an even less direct system, though. The Italian President is also indirectly elected. Also the German President.
I think there are lots of Presidents who aren't elected by a simple majority vote among adult citizens.
Don't be ridiculous. The German president is not elected by anything like the US electoral college. The German president is also largely ceremonial. There is no other democracy that has a national vote among adults to elect a president and then ignores the result of that vote and instead uses a US style electoral college.
Please don't overreact to things I didn't say. I did not say that the German President was elected by an electoral college. I said that they were not directly elected. Which is true.
I also didn't say that they were an Executive President, and I've previously said that I think that's a bigger problem that how you elect such a President. Parliamentary systems are better at managing conflict within a society than systems with a strong Executive President.
"The NHS must no longer “nick” people from abroad to staff the health service, Wes Streeting has said.
The Health Secretary has pledged that he will reduce the NHS’ “overreliance” on migrants to staff the health service and will train “our own homegrown talent”."
Western nations have been doing this for decades. There are good reasons to stop doing this, but it will be difficult. One problem is the long pipeline to train healthcare staff, which makes predicting numbers difficult. Recruitment from the developing world has long been used to fill any gaps that result.
I suggest a new tracker is needed, maybe even with a red and blue dotted line, starting from GE of 2017. On that day, not so long ago, the Lab/Con combined support was 82.3%. At GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In this poll it is 54%.
There must be a point at which this plummeting figure becomes game changing. So which way it goes is important. One to watch.
Though that poll surprises me. For LRG to remain flat given the Labour tribulations and the paucity of decent Tory leadership candidates is a poor show.
LRG? Or does GLR sounds better? LRG perhaps too similar sounding to LLG. Or do we add SNP and other too? I think we should
SLORG (the). The SLORG has stayed flat on 46%
SLORG it is. The SLORG v Labcon index. The Labcon can be a red and blue dotted line. SLORG can be unfairly represented by a dotted line of rats in a sack fighting over Galloway's hat.
So bets on the date of SLORG crossover? I don't actually think that'll happen because even a small Tory recovery will put paid to it. But it would fascinating to see.
A pedant writes: as SLORG=100%-Labcon, a graph of SLORG vs Labcon would be two mirrored lines. You just need to depict Labcon and see when it dips below 50%.
This is of course true but without two lines you can't have a proper crossover.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Perhaps some grifter psychology in there too. They think selling is winning and buying is for suckers (which in their game it is). Extending to international trade this means if you buy from a foreign country that country has 'won' and you have 'lost'.
I think its slightly different.
In grifter mentality buying is for losers and winners get given stuff for free.
So by adding tariffs the other side has to 'give' you that extra money and so you are the winner.
Yep you can probably add some of that in too. There's a veritable cocktail of nonsense going on in the big orange bonce.
I’ve spoken to a half dozen people who worked on economic policy in the Trump administration — most of whom are somewhat reluctantly voting for him again — who all say that Trump is a mercantilist who believes, sincerely but wrongly, that imports subtract from GDP.
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves. https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
One would have thought that the Yanks, of all people, would know better than to put taxes on tea or coffee.
Mercantilism is a very easy concept for someone with not much understanding of economics to get their head around. It’s essentially buy cheap and sell dear, on a global basis. (Though Ricardo is also fairly easy to explain).
I can see that for someone with a background as a property investor it also has some logic. Unfortunately as post war Brazil, Argentina and India demonstrated, it doesn’t really work if you try to apply it on an economy-wide basis.
Perhaps in infant school our children could begin to learn three things which are the opposite of mercantilism:
The invisible hand of self interest The law of comparative advantage and The more prosperous other countries are, the more they will want to buy your goods and services.
I've been reading a history of Japan, immediately post WWII. The US state department appreciation of basic economic principles, which coloured postwar policy (among other things, preventing McArthur's intended deindustrialization of Japan, and temporarily preserving pre-war colonial interests in Asia to provide Europe with a source of raw materials) seems far more sophisticated than much of what passes for economic debate today.
This is the rather bizarre post on the last thread in reply to my admission that during the GE campaign I had given Labour £100.....
Jessop:
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
When Maurice Saatchi next has his brainstorming session in his Chateau on Cap Ferrat I'll make sure this is posted on his gate.
Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi has resigned the whip, saying the party has moved too far right
Avg % who described Tories as "very right wing" under Cameron (as PM): 14% May: 15% Johnson: 18% Truss: no data, tenure too short to coincide with tracker Sunak: 21% https://x.com/YouGov/status/1839587245298246051
"The NHS must no longer “nick” people from abroad to staff the health service, Wes Streeting has said.
The Health Secretary has pledged that he will reduce the NHS’ “overreliance” on migrants to staff the health service and will train “our own homegrown talent”."
Western nations have been doing this for decades. There are good reasons to stop doing this, but it will be difficult. One problem is the long pipeline to train healthcare staff, which makes predicting numbers difficult. Recruitment from the developing world has long been used to fill any gaps that result.
The NHS knows the rate of staff leaving - retirement, job changes etc. This is quite stable over long periods.
The planning for staff recruitment is also long term.
You'd have to increase the training vastly, in the UK, to get even vaguely close to filling the gap. There is absolutely no danger of having too many doctors snd nurses, any time soon.
I’m going to refine my “London is the new Anchorage” meteorological meme. It’s hyperbolic, something I abhor. We don’t get the snows of Alaskan winters
I think we’ve now got the climate of somewhere about 500-1000km north of Vancouver. Somewhere like Haida Gwaii or Dawsons Landing or Whaletown
London: the Canadian Pacific sub-Arctic of the east
Not as catchy but closer to the truth. We now have a cold rainforest climate
Well, it does if you follow five or six obsessive bores on PB! I honestly haven’t heard a single person mention FROCKGATE IRL.
It's Covent Garden-Gate!
This is the rather bizarre post on the last thread in reply to my admission that during the GE campaign I had given Labour £100.....
Jessop:
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
Comments
So what's going on there, then.
Words to live by.
Yes, it's a real knife-edge.
On topic (not sure what happened), but an interesting detail is that Nebraska (as shown on the chart) is one of two states which do not award their Electoral College delegates all to the winner, but partly area by area (2 for statewide result, 3 for Congressional Districts). Nevada last time went 4:1 Republican due to one area being blue.
Trump has been staging a legal action to try and force Nevada to change to all or nothing, to gain that one delegate.
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/09/23/state-sen-mike-mcdonnell-deflates-gop-hopes-for-nebraska-winner-take-all-in-2024/
On balance it would imo be beneficial for the whole country to follow the Nebraska system. But that would turbocharge gerrymandering even further, perhaps.
More seriously, I think it could be an interesting trail to watch.
SPLORG?
Although if you exclude PC then you can instead have GORLS and then imagine a Father Jack like character in the Lab or Con party looking at polling and going:
"GORLS! Feck! Drink!"
It also falls under the 'blob' theory. No one could doubt that Batshitjelly was 'one of us' and therefore would be protected.
OR
Reduced house heating toughening us up as we head towards fuel price infinity.
Using Baxter, I took 5% off both the Conservative and Labour figures and added 5% to both the Lib Dem and Reform figures. Even then, the Lab/Con duopoly won 493 seats compared with 533 in July.
Think of a fan in a hot room. The fan doesn't actually lower the air temperature, it just moves the air around, meaning your body loses heat more easily. Or think of the effect of spraying a mist of water over you in a hot room - or even a cold room. It doesn't actually change the air temperature, it just makes it feel to you like it's cooler.
Colin Mackay
@STVColin
The new Scottish Conservative leader is @RussellFindlay1
10:04 am · 27 Sep 2024
Ruth Davidson endorsed him so will be pleased
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17g1d0yk1yo
As against that, Florida and Texas are close, with pretty unpopular incumbents, but I'd still see narrowish wins for those incumbents - it would be different if this were mid-term under a Republican President. One that doesn't get mentioned as much as it should is Nebraska, where Deb Fischer is being pressed very closley by Dan Osborn, a genuine independent, who says he will not caucus with either party, if elected.
Even if Harris wins the EC and popular vote Trump will almost certainly win the vast majority of southern states.
As to it happening, we are astonishingly close. I agree we probably won't get there but in 2017 (Labcon at well over 80%) today's figures (54/46) looked impossible.
I'm not really convinced about their use of a left-centre-right categorisation; we all know the weaknesses of that.
Great to have an objective view on this.
In my view BIK or capital gains or some sort of tax on this type of value, particularly when it relates to a gift that is given because someone is a minister of state, should apply. If I attempted to claim clothing through my business on the dubious claim I needed to "look smart for my work" I would pay BIK. Starmer's view (and perhaps yours) is clearly that all those in the public sector, including himself, should be given special treatment.
Anyhow, I think I'd rather be "an ale house account" than a real one!! In the words of John Cleese: "Well, er, yes Mr. Anchovy, but you see your report here says that you are an extremely dull person. You see, our experts describe you as an appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. And whereas in most professions these would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy they are a positive boon."
So a windy, damp 6 degrees morning probably feels colder than one with dry, still air at -1 degrees.
https://apnews.com/article/tariffs-trump-taxes-imports-inflation-consumers-prices-c2eef295a078a76ce2bb7fedb0c5e58c#:~:text=WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump has
I expect this would get watered down in the face of reality, but the key number to watch here is 20% on imports of goods from everywhere (there are already eye watering tariffs on many Chinese-made goods). Everywhere meaning, in practical terms, 3 big exporting locations:
1. The EU
2. Mexico, via the vast Maquiladora economy
3. East Asia: Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan
Less impact on primary or agricultural exporters as they already face significant tariff and non-tariff barriers.
What would that mean for our and our neighbours' economies? Short term I would expect a fall in GBP, EUR, JPY and other exposed currencies, but probably less of a fall in GBP as we export more services and fewer goods to the US. Our service exports should hopefully be protected, although they are already partly hit by the BEAT within multinationals.
Medium term we potentially get into a position of US inflation and European deflation as surplus production makes its way through the economy. Then recession almost everywhere (including the UK as a decline in trade intensity puts pressure on financial services).
Long term it might ordinarily mean a Democrat landslide in the 2026 midterms and probably a Dem president in 2028, though by that point Trump would probably have progressed far enough in project 2025 to ensure that's no longer a practical possibility.
https://x.com/murdo_fraser/status/1436080496421834761
That’s why he likes tariffs.
This is a widely held, but incorrect, view of how trade works and Trump is one of the people who holds it.
The various efforts to backfill some other explanation of why he wants a 20% tax on Kenyan coffee and bananas from Central America are embarrassing — stop humiliating yourselves.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1839443238421467235
Has something emerged since then to overturn that?
So the charity collapsed in chaos. It was revealed that the financial book keeping was basically non existent. People were funding all kinds of personal stuff on the charity. No compliance with child safety legislation and best practise.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
Interesting on the hollowing out of analytical institutions after the Cold War, obsession with Russia, and also on Academia vs Thinktanks.
https://youtu.be/CCyDQlqHZps?t=866
Today, we talk to two of the most high profile analysts of the war about their new report into how rectifying systematic failures in Western analysis and intelligence is vital for preventing future conflict.
Contributors:
Eliot A. Cohen (Former Counsellor of the United States Department of State). @EliotACohen on X.
Phillips O'Brien (Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews). @PhillipsPOBrien on X.
Funny old world.
But the important bit was obviously not to upset the Big Cheeses who were the Trustees. Expecting them to actually have a fucking clue about the shit pile they were legally responsible for - that would be madness.
How much truth was there in those allegations?
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
Oh, hold on, this is Trump. Why am I expecting anything coherent or grounded in reality?
The SPLORG are taking over
Also:
Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
As Tucker Carlson’s tour rolls on, headliner Roseanne Barr tells a cheering audience that the elites are eating babies and are vampires who drink blood and love the taste of human flesh but Trump is going to stop it.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1839459602011664704
I can see that for someone with a background as a property investor it also has some logic. Unfortunately as post war Brazil, Argentina and India demonstrated, it doesn’t really work if you try to apply it on an economy-wide basis.
Though I hesitate to suggest what the joint programme of the coming SPLORG coalition government (maybe with confidence and supply from SF and DUP) would look like.
From my memory of it, Batmanghelidjh made the disastrous mistake of being too close to the Conservatives, which put her firmly in the firing line.
CUT——————————-
Quotes seem to be broken
The Guardian has a story all prepared, on how the Evul Tories had collapsed the charity. Then Cameron and Co approved a tranche of money. They knew it was conditional and monitored. In addition, the charity was going belly up. So the money would never get there.
The cause of the failure was a completely chaotic lack of any system within the charity. You would fail to run a household like that, let alone a charity caring for large numbers of vulnerable children.
If we get additional parties which meet those criteria and they do not make a pleasing acronym - well, we might have to change the rules.
https://www.politico.com/video/2024/09/09/ad-the-best-people-harris-for-president-1425788
But I do wish to apologise for forgetting that using blockquotes for purposes other than quoting other posts confused he hell out of Vanilla!
It's going to be a mess unless the economy picks up substantially in the next 4 years.
Dusfa for the NI grouping maybe?
He said that the best sort of deal you could do was one where both parties left thinking they had a good deal. His business relied on people coming back with more jobs. If they felt he was fair, then they would do so. If they felt he was unfair, they were far less likely to. But that way, you eventually run out of clients.
Occasionally he would make a mistake with an estimate and the job would cost more, and most times the client would know, that as he was fair, he was not screwing with them. Other times he would come in under estimate, and he would sometimes slightly reduce the bill as a result. He had relationships with clients that lasted forty or more years.
Oh, and honesty as well. If you fuck up, explain why the job went wrong, clearly and honestly.
Did he make as much money on each job? No. Did he make more money in the long run? Probably.
Trump's magic has been to grift from the same people over and over again.
The invisible hand of self interest
The law of comparative advantage
and
The more prosperous other countries are, the more they will want to buy your goods and services.
She was demonstrably utterly unfit to run a fair sized charity. That doesn't mean anything bad about her - tons of people don't have a systematic frame of mind.
The trustees who didn't do anything are a sack of shits, in my opinion.
I am moderately closely involved with a charity. At the monthly meetings, the trustees turn up. They have copies of the financials and ask questions about why XY is up and Y is down. And the compliance with child safe guarding rules. Plus a number of the trustees do work in and around the charity - so they have a very good idea of the state of things. Involved is a nice word, I think.
In grifter mentality buying is for losers and winners get given stuff for free.
So by adding tariffs the other side has to 'give' you that extra money and so you are the winner.
The LDs would gain Godalming and Ash, Farnham and Barndon and Hampshire E from the Tories too
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
The swing states and online sees very different news, in the online arena there are two groups basically talking straight past each other who agree on pretty much nothing except today being Friday.
This went bust on a regular basis, and then reappeared. Strangely the ownership was moderately consistent.
The ability to order stuff on account, for the various reincarnations, was startling.
The popular theories were either (1) Brown envelopes, (2) The managers at the various breweries etc changed and their successors didn't have a clue.
Not heard that one either?
It's F-u-c-k-e-r Carlson.
The Health Secretary has pledged that he will reduce the NHS’ “overreliance” on migrants to staff the health service and will train “our own homegrown talent”."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/09/27/politics-latest-news-starmer-labour-us-trump/
Well, it does if you follow five or six obsessive bores on PB! I honestly haven’t heard a single person mention FROCKGATE IRL.
It's Covent Garden-Gate!
This is the rather bizarre post on the last thread in reply to my admission that during the GE campaign I had given Labour £100.....
Jessop:
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
I also didn't say that they were an Executive President, and I've previously said that I think that's a bigger problem that how you elect such a President. Parliamentary systems are better at managing conflict within a society than systems with a strong Executive President.
I should tell him that more often...
The US state department appreciation of basic economic principles, which coloured postwar policy (among other things, preventing McArthur's intended deindustrialization of Japan, and temporarily preserving pre-war colonial interests in Asia to provide Europe with a source of raw materials) seems far more sophisticated than much of what passes for economic debate today.
🚨 NEW: Health Secretary Wes Streeting says that the UK needs to reduce it's "overreliance" on migrants in the NHS
"For a long time now, we've had a culture that says we won't bother to train our own homegrown talent. We'll just nick people from elsewhere"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1839587622919795188
It's Covent Garden-Gate!
This is the rather bizarre post on the last thread in reply to my admission that during the GE campaign I had given Labour £100.....
Jessop:
£100 is nowhere near enough. £100 gets you put on the list of mugs who donate. You are one of thousands. At best, you will be forgotten. At medium, you will be pestered by them for future donations. At worst, you will be pestered by many people (*).
But £20,000 is different. That is a different list. They will care for you. They will nurture you. You may be invited to events; the larger the figure, the greater the events. They will want more money from you, so will want to know what *you* want. And therein lies the start of potential corruption.
And Alli has given far, far more than £20,000 to Labour figures. Apparently, that buys you a voice in candidate selection and a Number 10 pass...
(*) If you give to certain charities, you can suddenly start getting pestered by other charities. It's almost as though the mug list is shared amongst them...
When Maurice Saatchi next has his brainstorming session in his Chateau on Cap Ferrat I'll make sure this is posted on his gate.
Avg % who described Tories as "very right wing" under
Cameron (as PM): 14%
May: 15%
Johnson: 18%
Truss: no data, tenure too short to coincide with tracker
Sunak: 21%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1839587245298246051
The planning for staff recruitment is also long term.
You'd have to increase the training vastly, in the UK, to get even vaguely close to filling the gap. There is absolutely no danger of having too many doctors snd nurses, any time soon.
The gap is structural.
I think we’ve now got the climate of somewhere about 500-1000km north of Vancouver. Somewhere like Haida Gwaii or Dawsons Landing or Whaletown
London: the Canadian Pacific sub-Arctic of the east
Not as catchy but closer to the truth. We now have a cold rainforest climate