I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Oh bless.
This reminds me of student 'communists' pleading that true communism had never properly been tried.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
That's a bit like complaining that the De Havilland 108 was never fully tested because it killed its test pilots first.
Luckyguy is pointing out that in that analogy the correct claim would be that it wasn't allowed to take off because the engineers thought the design too radical.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
But STV also weakens the link between the MPs and the constituencies because of the multi- member system. And of course STV is not PR in its operation even if it might increase proportionality in its results.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
The best way of reducing the power of the party system is to give voters choices between candidates of the same party and make it easier for independents to stand and win.
FPTP gives a lot of power to parties as they pick the candidate. STV gives power to the voters as a party (at least the larger ones) will have >1 candidate and voters can pick between them. Open list systems also give voters lots of power. (Some open list systems let you pick candidates from across different lists and get nearer to STV.)
The experience in Ireland clearly shows STV supports the election of lots of independents. No Western democracy has as many. (Malta, however, also has STV, but has no independents.)
Not that I agree with your premise. A free vote on everything simply doesn't work. MPs do not have the time to work out how to vote on every Bill. A party system is allows MPs to focus on particular areas, trusting their ideologically likeminded fellows will tell them how to vote on other areas.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
My friends wife is called Maura. Many people think its said as Moira, but it should rhyme with Laura.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
This isn't helping you.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
That's a bit like complaining that the De Havilland 108 was never fully tested because it killed its test pilots first.
Yes, interesting point, except it's not anything like that.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
But STV also weakens the link between the MPs and the constituencies because of the multi- member system. And of course STV is not PR in its operation even if it might increase proportionality in its results.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
STV can make the link between MPs and the constituency stronger, if that's what voters want, because it gives voters the power to vote for what they want, rather than against what they fear.
Just look at Ireland.
You would struggle to find an election with a stronger link between representatives and their constituencies, or even small parts of their constituencies.
Depends on whether you think a thrd choice transfer is someone you actually want. In a ranking system people will still be voting for the least worst options unless they choose to only vote for their first choice.
And as I said STV is not really proportional in terms of parties. Which is a good thing.
The point with having a third preference is that you don't have to make the tactical vote guesses about who other people are going to vote for, and whether you have to vote y to stop x, it can vote for your first preference z.
This means parties who build their campaigns solely around only y can stop x have to start finding positive reasons for you to vote for them, because you can always vote z first and give them your second preference, and that likely lads to them being knocked out early if they don't adjust.
Weren't you talking about spoiling your ballot last time because the options were so poor? I don't understand why you're so wedded to FPTP.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
This isn't helping you.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
Tell me you don't understand QE & QT without telling me you don't understand QE & QT
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
This isn't helping you.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
Tell me you don't understand QE & QT without telling me you don't understand QE & QT
Dear Lord - we have already had this discussion, many times. The Treasury must indemnify the Bank with transfers of real (borrowed) money for their losses on QT - it is every bit as real a loss on the Treasury's balance sheet as spending or tax cuts. Next.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
“Fruit” in Colombia is a whole new category of foodstuff
It’s like most people live in a world where “meat” is always “grilled steaks of meat” - whether that’s pork or beef or ostrich. It will be a grilled steak thereof
Then you come to Colombia and you discover pate and salami and saucisson and terrine and burgers and cured meats and sausages and cutlets
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
My friends wife is called Maura. Many people think its said as Moira, but it should rhyme with Laura.
There is a 'famous' Maura now. I have no idea what she does or why she is famous. But such is modern life.
I praise Allah that my parents didn’t give me the first name Mohammed (or variations therein.)
I have a teacher friend in Birmingham who observed every boy in her classes for years had the first name Mohammed which led to confusion.
My cousin in Basildon has six children, all boys. She named them all Kevin.
When I asked her if this didn't lead to some confusion she replied that it was handy because if she wanted them all in she just had to call out the one name. What, I asked, if she wanted any of them individually? No problem, she replied. 'I just use their surnames.'
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
Really? Have I a track record of that?
Sometimes I'm in earnest on here and sometimes I'm trying out ideas to see if someone knocks holes in them.
An alternative explanation I thought of was that reaching for a conforming name was cover for non-conformist actions, but I'm not sure how well that fits the evidence.
There's a very long history of children's names being used to signal religious virtue, but when non-conformists did so in the 17th and 18th century (Grace, Patience, Chastity, etc) this was normally because they were extremely pious, rather than pretending to be. Not unreasonable to conclude the same with the choice of Mohammed as a name.
Now some shite questions from Chris Mason and Natasha Clark.
What is Chris Mason for?
All BBC political editors since Nick Robinson exist to remind us that Nick Robinson was really good at his job.
Indeed. John Cole from beyond the grave would be better than Mason or Laura.
Cole was outstanding. Read his autobiography if you enjoy political insights and tittle-tattle,
I particularly cherished his remark that if he were a Chancellor of the Exchequer looking to save a bit of cash for the public purse he would disband MI5 and MI6.
Now that is interesting. He wasn't given to wild exaggeration, and he plainly thought that their contribution was neutral at best. After reading Spycatcher, and A Spy Among Friends, it's easy to see why he thought that.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
Really? Have I a track record of that?
Sometimes I'm in earnest on here and sometimes I'm trying out ideas to see if someone knocks holes in them.
An alternative explanation I thought of was that reaching for a conforming name was cover for non-conformist actions, but I'm not sure how well that fits the evidence.
There's a very long history of children's names being used to signal religious virtue, but when non-conformists did so in the 17th and 18th century (Grace, Patience, Chastity, etc) this was normally because they were extremely pious, rather than pretending to be. Not unreasonable to conclude the same with the choice of Mohammed as a name.
Comparing what Christians did in the 18th century and what Muslims are doing in the 21st century is... well, I guess you could call it a working hypothesis, but it's not particularly convincing without some more relevant evidence.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
We’ve have this debate before and we’ve shown you evidence that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant Muslims are at least as religious or MORE religious than their parents and grandparents. The popularity of a plainly religious name like Muhammad is in keeping with that
However this will be evidence YOU DON’T LIKE so it will not count as evidence, in your tiny shrinking world
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
Really? Have I a track record of that?
Sometimes I'm in earnest on here and sometimes I'm trying out ideas to see if someone knocks holes in them.
An alternative explanation I thought of was that reaching for a conforming name was cover for non-conformist actions, but I'm not sure how well that fits the evidence.
There's a very long history of children's names being used to signal religious virtue, but when non-conformists did so in the 17th and 18th century (Grace, Patience, Chastity, etc) this was normally because they were extremely pious, rather than pretending to be. Not unreasonable to conclude the same with the choice of Mohammed as a name.
Something I do know a little about. When parents used names as listed it was because they wanted to signal that they were better than their neighbours, when they weren't. Usually you named sons, firstly after the grandfather, then in order his brothers, in order of age. As they became more sophisitcated that changed to order of wealth. I have an actual letter from the 1820s listing why the kids were given the names they were and who they were expecting to receive legacies from. Most interesting christian names, probably Theophilus, Tempest, Ottiwell and Alverella
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 4th December, Changes w/ 27th November.
The best thing about this awful government will be the final death of Labour forever as they go under 20. Next best, a Reform government will follow
You can see why Starmer has suddenly started talking tough on immigration, but pinning it on the Tories will only help Reform.
I was just having the same thought. Labour will NEVER be trusted on immigration - quite the opposite (and for correct and obvious reasons). So by banging on about it Starmer brings attention to an area of grave Labour weakness - even if Tories are also despised - and he assists Farage. Also Starmer is the man putting people in prison for mentioning immigration on Facebook. We can all see the hypocrisy
It’s like the Tories banging on about a broken NHS - but worse because this is a much more explosive issue
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
That's a bit like complaining that the De Havilland 108 was never fully tested because it killed its test pilots first.
Luckyguy is pointing out that in that analogy the correct claim would be that it wasn't allowed to take off because the engineers thought the design too radical.
It's up to him to adduce the Miles M.52 if he wants, and it wasn't the engineers but the pols who were to blame, so that analogy doesn't work properly ...
CT receipts up by 10% - fabulous, except we increased CT by over 30%.
That's 20% less profits being declared in the UK for whatever reason in year one, which if the trend continues, goes negative in year two.
"which if the trend continues, goes negative in year two. "
I'll take that bet !
Onshore corporation tax receipts actually increased by 16% Offshore receipts decreased as a result of a sharp decline in Oil & Gas prices
Then there are about £12bn of receipts were the tax rate is unchanged as they are on the small companies band. And another amount unknown where there is taper relief.
Then there was the full expensing of qualifying capital spend, which pushes corporation tax liability into the future.
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 4th December, Changes w/ 27th November.
The best thing about this awful government will be the final death of Labour forever as they go under 20. Next best, a Reform government will follow
You don't really understand how the electoral system works in this country? I refer you to the Liberals in the 80s, I think it was, above 30% and leading in the polls. A great Liberal government followed. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
I'm afraid it takes a great deal more to dislodge the Tory/Labour duopoly.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
I think it's a bit of both: the share of Muslims has risen in the population, and at the same time other names have fragmented. (It's also worth remembering that Mohammed became the second most popular name in 2007. So it's taken it 15 years to rise one place.)
This is from the ONS Blog:
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I do t think M was calling you a racist - it’s the irregular verb thing where if “I” say something it’s an opinion but if someone else does then it’s racism etc etc. about double standards.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I do t think M was calling you a racist - it’s the irregular verb thing where if “I” say something it’s an opinion but if someone else does then it’s racism etc etc. about double standards.
But what was this comment about "He has been imprisoned for incitement." then ?
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I do t think M was calling you a racist - it’s the irregular verb thing where if “I” say something it’s an opinion but if someone else does then it’s racism etc etc. about double standards.
But what was this comment about "He has been imprisoned for incitement." then ?
I - things “I” say are perfectly reasonable. You - things you say however are not He - things he said got him sent to prison.
A play on grammar - I, you, he/she, we, you (plural), they.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
If Muslim parents are unwilling to stand out as different by not calling their son Mohammed/Muhammad/Mohammad then that indicates a degree of conformity that suggests conservatism.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
Or maybe they just like the name? I think you're reaching here, keen to prove something you've already decided is true.
Really? Have I a track record of that?
Sometimes I'm in earnest on here and sometimes I'm trying out ideas to see if someone knocks holes in them.
An alternative explanation I thought of was that reaching for a conforming name was cover for non-conformist actions, but I'm not sure how well that fits the evidence.
There's a very long history of children's names being used to signal religious virtue, but when non-conformists did so in the 17th and 18th century (Grace, Patience, Chastity, etc) this was normally because they were extremely pious, rather than pretending to be. Not unreasonable to conclude the same with the choice of Mohammed as a name.
Comparing what Christians did in the 18th century and what Muslims are doing in the 21st century is... well, I guess you could call it a working hypothesis, but it's not particularly convincing without some more relevant evidence.
Thanks for the link, it's been an interesting read so far, and of course a bit of a corrective to my musings in the story of Mohammad Jalaluddin.
However, in my partial defence, the author does go on to write, "Names are significant ... because they carry significant religious and socio-cultural meanings" Perhaps there are some parallels with 18th century Christians after all! Albeit not in as simple a way as I posited.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
Ah, my own sloppiness shining through. Not you. The others.
Its a cool dataset. Despite thinking we were very original with our son's name 45 other families did the same!
There is a special place in hell for those who name their child with a shortened version of the actual name. Don’t name them “Tommy”, name them “Thomas” and call them “Tommy”.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
This isn't helping you.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
You are standing next to smouldering remains and you are still assuring me there was no fire.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
There are a few massive technological changes in progress that are going to create masses of economic growth, and instead of encouraging the government to make sure that Britain takes advantage and removes the barriers to that growth in Britain, you'd happily sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of the world benefit. Why?
I'm not rooting for us to fall behind or do badly. My point is more about unrealistic expectations/targets on growth. It helps nobody imo.
I made the mistake of assuming that it was PR, and you are right, its not. Which makes me wonder why the Lib Dems had that as the option. Was that all they could get out of Cameron?
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
Ah, my own sloppiness shining through. Not you. The others.
Its a cool dataset. Despite thinking we were very original with our son's name 45 other families did the same!
There is a special place in hell for those who name their child with a shortened version of the actual name. Don’t name them “Tommy”, name them “Thomas” and call them “Tommy”.
In my case Timothy, but always called Tim, unless in trouble...
And yes the TV show 'Sorry' caused me no end of trouble in the 80's...
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I do t think M was calling you a racist - it’s the irregular verb thing where if “I” say something it’s an opinion but if someone else does then it’s racism etc etc. about double standards.
But what was this comment about "He has been imprisoned for incitement." then ?
I - things “I” say are perfectly reasonable. You - things you say however are not He - things he said got him sent to prison.
A play on grammar - I, you, he/she, we, you (plural), they.
The point being that the same journalist who applauded the murder of the CEO would probably have lost his shit over people applauding violence against his (the journalist's) In Group.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
Partly fair but not entirely. It is the localness of the elections which I emphasise, and the importance of planning to come first in enough of them as the challenge to any potential governing party. To come first (or indeed +50%) in a nationally based poll is a different sort of exercise, requiring different skills. The FPTP single seat system binds people to representaive and to parliament in a distinct way, and is extremely ancient.
I do support AV as a much needed tweak, but a single seat based democracy rather than a national/regional votes based democracy delivers enough good things to be cautious about change. I don't expect to change any minds!
BTW, using this as a system for electing just one person to be POTUS combines the worst of multiple systems. Using it to elect 650n is fine with me.
The benefit of STV (Single Transferable Vote), used in the recent Irish Election, is that it still gives the geographic link, albeit four or five times larger than current constituencies.
It is AV but with four or five elected instead of one. The result is fairly proportional. No need for tactical voting. No safe seats. And the big one for me - you can choose between several candidates of your own party rather than having to vote for a single candidate your party puts up.
It can take a while to count manually under STV. It could be automated but I think the Irish love the drama of the prolonged count.
Some people were commenting on the quality of the presentation this morning. I give you the Greatest Political Speech Ever. It includes high density urban planning.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
This isn't helping you.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
You are standing next to smouldering remains and you are still assuring me there was no fire.
He is right to question how the links between the Bond/Pension markets were allowed to be exposed to the consequences of an announcement that had been flagged some months before. Someone(s) failed to do their job properly in market surveillance.
The same thing would have happened to Corbyn and his acolytes. The markets expressed “surprise” at the entirely foreseeable.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
That's rubbish, I'm afraid. There's a huge amount government could do to encourage growth. Just not this one, very probably.
Of course the government can encourage (or discourage) growth in what they do. I'm not saying they can't. I'm making a slightly different point - but the thread gone, I see, so tbc.
Some people were commenting on the quality of the presentation this morning. I give you the Greatest Political Speech Ever. It includes high density urban planning.
Now some shite questions from Chris Mason and Natasha Clark.
What is Chris Mason for?
All BBC political editors since Nick Robinson exist to remind us that Nick Robinson was really good at his job.
Indeed. John Cole from beyond the grave would be better than Mason or Laura.
Cole was outstanding. Read his autobiography if you enjoy political insights and tittle-tattle,
I particularly cherished his remark that if he were a Chancellor of the Exchequer looking to save a bit of cash for the public purse he would disband MI5 and MI6.
Now that is interesting. He wasn't given to wild exaggeration, and he plainly thought that their contribution was neutral at best. After reading Spycatcher, and A Spy Among Friends, it's easy to see why he thought that.
It has been suggested that MI6 never turned up anything that could not be inferred by reading the newspapers. As for MI5, what is the point in guarding our secrets when we give them away for nothing in the name of outsourcing?
And even the intelligence services' finest hour, cracking Nazi codes during the second world war, was somewhat compromised by leaking those secrets to the Soviets, and not noticing the Germans had cracked our codes!
Do we have any information on what this "Reform, but Nigel won't tell me yet" upcoming announcement may be?
Is Bobby Jenrick leaving?
Or might it be ... whisper it quietly ... Boris? *
* That would put the (cat / rat / prat) amongst the pigeons.
Boris who is having to cancel events on his Australian tour because the Australians don't give a XXXX? That Boris?
Yes, that one .
To be fair, the cancellation (and it's only of the final event, afaik) might be because he wants to get home in time to appear on stage with Farage.
Refuk tend to do their big announcements on a Tuesday, so him leaving Aus on Sunday morning (rather than Monday as originally planned) would certainly tie in with that.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
Partly fair but not entirely. It is the localness of the elections which I emphasise, and the importance of planning to come first in enough of them as the challenge to any potential governing party. To come first (or indeed +50%) in a nationally based poll is a different sort of exercise, requiring different skills. The FPTP single seat system binds people to representaive and to parliament in a distinct way, and is extremely ancient.
I do support AV as a much needed tweak, but a single seat based democracy rather than a national/regional votes based democracy delivers enough good things to be cautious about change. I don't expect to change any minds!
BTW, using this as a system for electing just one person to be POTUS combines the worst of multiple systems. Using it to elect 650n is fine with me.
The benefit of STV (Single Transferable Vote), used in the recent Irish Election, is that it still gives the geographic link, albeit four or five times larger than current constituencies.
It is AV but with four or five elected instead of one. The result is fairly proportional. No need for tactical voting. No safe seats. And the big one for me - you can choose between several candidates of your own party rather than having to vote for a single candidate your party puts up.
It can take a while to count manually under STV. It could be automated but I think the Irish love the drama of the prolonged count.
The parties have extremely well-organised teams of people who tally the votes while the official counters are sorting them into piles for each candidate.
So everyone knows the result, near enough, once those tallies are complete, and there's not a huge incentive to rush the official count. It takes them ages to do the first count, much longer than the equivalent count in the UK, so they could do it faster if they wanted to.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
The amount of glee expressed online about his killing is quite scary. One journalist posted on bluesky that “we want these executives dead”.
Is this the Twitter alternative which is not mired in toxicity but is full of people being pleasant to each other ?
Yes, it is.
I am expressing an opinion You are a foul, toxic racist He has been imprisoned for incitement.
What are you on about and why are you calling me a racist for a post commenting about a journalists reaction to the killing of the head of a Health Insurance Company. I saw the comment online and thought it inappropriate. Quite how that is "foul, toxic and racist" god only knows.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I do t think M was calling you a racist - it’s the irregular verb thing where if “I” say something it’s an opinion but if someone else does then it’s racism etc etc. about double standards.
But what was this comment about "He has been imprisoned for incitement." then ?
I - things “I” say are perfectly reasonable. You - things you say however are not He - things he said got him sent to prison.
A play on grammar - I, you, he/she, we, you (plural), they.
The point being that the same journalist who applauded the murder of the CEO would probably have lost his shit over people applauding violence against his (the journalist's) In Group.
her actually. Taylor Lorenz is female and identifies as female..
Comments
This reminds me of student 'communists' pleading that true communism had never properly been tried.
Please do not desist... we all need a good laugh.
FPTP gives a lot of power to parties as they pick the candidate. STV gives power to the voters as a party (at least the larger ones) will have >1 candidate and voters can pick between them. Open list systems also give voters lots of power. (Some open list systems let you pick candidates from across different lists and get nearer to STV.)
The experience in Ireland clearly shows STV supports the election of lots of independents. No Western democracy has as many. (Malta, however, also has STV, but has no independents.)
Not that I agree with your premise. A free vote on everything simply doesn't work. MPs do not have the time to work out how to vote on every Bill. A party system is allows MPs to focus on particular areas, trusting their ideologically likeminded fellows will tell them how to vote on other areas.
There are many reasons for the market turbulence surrounding the minibudget, 70% of which the Bank of England have acknowledged responsibility for, but some of which were no doubt exacerbated by Truss and Kwarteng's poor preparation for, timing of, and presentation of their budget, which I have no issue acknowledging.
However, even if you ascribe all of the market turbulence to investors' lack of confidence in the UK Government's abilities to support its debts, the QT programme announced the previous day by the Bank of England made the Treasury liable for an extra £80bn of spending. That utterly dwarves any 'unfunded tax cuts' in the minibudget, and was not in any way a measure introduced by Truss or Kwarteng.
Interesting as this debate is however, the fact that the budget was DOA, as you acknowledge, means we will never know whether the measures included therein would have stimulated growth or not. Continue to argue if you wish - I really don't see the point, but you do you.
They're not likely to want to be different about headscarf wearing, marrying out of the community, being absent from the demonstration against outcasts, etc.
This means parties who build their campaigns solely around only y can stop x have to start finding positive reasons for you to vote for them, because you can always vote z first and give them your second preference, and that likely lads to them being knocked out early if they don't adjust.
Weren't you talking about spoiling your ballot last time because the options were so poor? I don't understand why you're so wedded to FPTP.
https://www.rsmuk.com/insights/weekly-tax-brief/corporation-tax-hits-record-high-but-beware-the-golden-goose
CT receipts up by 10% - fabulous, except we increased CT by over 30%.
That's 20% less profits being declared in the UK for whatever reason in year one, which if the trend continues, goes negative in year two.
https://x.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1864671867132322198
Westminster Voting Intention:
CON: 26% (-1)
REF: 24% (+2)
LAB: 23% (-2)
LDM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 9% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 4th December,
Changes w/ 27th November.
It’s like most people live in a world where “meat” is always “grilled steaks of meat” - whether that’s pork or beef or ostrich. It will be a grilled steak thereof
Then you come to Colombia and you discover pate and salami and saucisson and terrine and burgers and cured meats and sausages and cutlets
When I asked her if this didn't lead to some confusion she replied that it was handy because if she wanted them all in she just had to call out the one name. What, I asked, if she wanted any of them individually? No problem, she replied. 'I just use their surnames.'
Did I have a coat?
Sometimes I'm in earnest on here and sometimes I'm trying out ideas to see if someone knocks holes in them.
An alternative explanation I thought of was that reaching for a conforming name was cover for non-conformist actions, but I'm not sure how well that fits the evidence.
There's a very long history of children's names being used to signal religious virtue, but when non-conformists did so in the 17th and 18th century (Grace, Patience, Chastity, etc) this was normally because they were extremely pious, rather than pretending to be. Not unreasonable to conclude the same with the choice of Mohammed as a name.
I particularly cherished his remark that if he were a Chancellor of the Exchequer looking to save a bit of cash for the public purse he would disband MI5 and MI6.
Now that is interesting. He wasn't given to wild exaggeration, and he plainly thought that their contribution was neutral at best. After reading Spycatcher, and A Spy Among Friends, it's easy to see why he thought that.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ijsl-2023-0004/html may be some useful literature if you want to dive in to the area.
The killer has not been caught.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
However this will be evidence YOU DON’T LIKE so it will not count as evidence, in your tiny shrinking world
It’s like the Tories banging on about a broken NHS - but worse because this is a much more explosive issue
AV is NOT proportional.
and
VOTE FARMER
Hence his second “relaunch” in six months. Pitiful
CON: 26% (-1)
REF: 24% (+2)
LAB: 23% (-2)
LDEM: 11% (-1)
GRN: 9% (-)
via
@FindoutnowUK
, 04 Dec
I'll take that bet !
Onshore corporation tax receipts actually increased by 16%
Offshore receipts decreased as a result of a sharp decline in Oil & Gas prices
Then there are about £12bn of receipts were the tax rate is unchanged as they are on the small companies band.
And another amount unknown where there is taper relief.
Then there was the full expensing of qualifying capital spend, which pushes corporation tax liability into the future.
Still think its going negative in year 2 ?
NEW THREAD
I'm afraid it takes a great deal more to dislodge the Tory/Labour duopoly.
You never know, but let's not get carried away.
This is from the ONS Blog:
Back in 1996, when we first published annual lists of baby names with full counts, the top boys’ name was Jack. There were 10,779 baby Jacks, a whopping 3.2% of all baby boys born that year. Now the number 1 name is given to only half that proportion of baby boys. About 1 in 4 (24%) baby boys were given a name in the top 10 in 1996, whereas now it’s only about 1 in 8 (12%). This increasing diversification in naming has taken place every single year since 1996, for both boys and girls. It was probably happening for many years before that too.
You - things you say however are not
He - things he said got him sent to prison.
A play on grammar - I, you, he/she, we, you (plural), they.
However, in my partial defence, the author does go on to write, "Names are significant ... because they carry significant religious and socio-cultural meanings" Perhaps there are some parallels with 18th century Christians after all! Albeit not in as simple a way as I posited.
And yes the TV show 'Sorry' caused me no end of trouble in the 80's...
It is AV but with four or five elected instead of one. The result is fairly proportional. No need for tactical voting. No safe seats. And the big one for me - you can choose between several candidates of your own party rather than having to vote for a single candidate your party puts up.
It can take a while to count manually under STV. It could be automated but I think the Irish love the drama of the prolonged count.
https://youtu.be/LjogCytzX0s?feature=shared
The same thing would have happened to Corbyn and his acolytes. The markets expressed “surprise” at the entirely foreseeable.
And even the intelligence services' finest hour, cracking Nazi codes during the second world war, was somewhat compromised by leaking those secrets to the Soviets, and not noticing the Germans had cracked our codes!
Refuk tend to do their big announcements on a Tuesday, so him leaving Aus on Sunday morning (rather than Monday as originally planned) would certainly tie in with that.
She last week described those not still wearing anti-Covid face masks in public as “raw-dogging the air” https://x.com/blueskylibs/status/1863704400167838072
So everyone knows the result, near enough, once those tallies are complete, and there's not a huge incentive to rush the official count. It takes them ages to do the first count, much longer than the equivalent count in the UK, so they could do it faster if they wanted to.