@sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016
You should probably also include who it's from.
Nigella Lawson @AndrewRacklyeft 26m26 minutes ago Did I just hear Sajid Javid correctly when he said he wouldn't be part of a government that cuts disability benefits? #newsnight
Oh dear,the lad isn't having the best few months is he.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
How on earth is it 'partisan' to make people make an active choice whether or not to contribute to a political party?
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
If Trump gets a majority of elected delegates then to lose at a brokered convention would be a travesty.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
There would be some merit in your argument if so much government expenditure was not needed to cover the health costs of diabetes and obesity, and so much disability payment too.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
Tim, go back and read what you said.
You said it wasn't the job of the government to fix people who need to be fixed. Well, in the UK it is. And will remain so as long as I can help it.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
How on earth is it 'partisan' to make people make an active choice whether or not to contribute to a political party?
Did you not notice I support the proposed change? It's partisan in intent because clearly part of the reason for doing it is to harm the Labour Party. That doesn't, however, mean it is automatically unfair and I don't think it is.nthe motivation may be questionable, may be partisan, but it does not follow the idea is definitely bad.
Clear enough? Unless you think a good idea cannot simultaneously be done for partisan purposes, which is just plain wrong in my opinion. Many good and fair ideas may gain traction within parties only because they see it giving them partisan advantage. Boris choosing leave primarily, many believe, because of leadership ambition, is a similar sort of thing. The right thing for the wrong reason. I'm of the view that the reason is not always important though, but it would be silly not to acknowledge the reason.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
Taxes have to happen one way or another, voluntary taxes are the least worst.
On condition that this tax is not increasing the government's share of GDP being taken in taxes.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.
Hmm, is the conference centre near the airport or the city centre?
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
Taxes have to happen one way or another, voluntary taxes are the least worst.
On condition that this tax is not increasing the government's share of GDP being taken in taxes.
It's only going to raise around £500m, which will be more than offset by the personal allowance rises. Furthermore, the entire amount raised has been ring fenced for investment in school sports.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
If Trump gets a majority of elected delegates then to lose at a brokered convention would be a travesty.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.
On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53% Pick someone else - 42% No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.
Agreed. I have the same feelings about Capri - not for the tax reasons, but cost of living is similar...
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.
Hmm, is the conference centre near the airport or the city centre?
The Bella Centre about 3km south of the city centre. It doesn't sound as if there is much immediately around it. Christianshaven looks just about walkable. I like to walk to conferences, it wakes me up. I was last in Copenhagen camping in 1983.
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
There are also about 10 delegates, Carson, Paul?, Huckabee that Trump might get, but the rules are complex. Some may already have been released, some will still be bound to their original winners on the first ballot, and some can be 'directed' by their original winner, depending upon the particular state rules wherein the delegates were won...
After umming & arring, I've decided against laying off my big 1000/1 Ryan/Romney POTUS bets. I honestly can't really get my head around the convention rules. I basically think a not-trump/cruz outcome is pretty unlikely, around 2% - but could be as high as 5-10% depending on the delegate math. In any case, most of that probability is sucked up by Kasich who is the obvious compromise candidate.
At a push, i'd value Ryan between 25/1-50/1 for the nomination & 50/1-100/1for POTUS - and Romney probably double or x3 Ryan's odds.
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
Could be a close three-way.
I'm looking at California:
In 2008 the victory margin was 42-35 for McCain and he got under the same rules 158 out of 170 delegates. In 2000 Bush won by 52-43 and got all 162 delegates.
The winner take all at a congressional district level can do wonders.
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
Could be a close three-way.
I'm looking at California:
In 2008 the victory margin was 42-35 for McCain and he got under the same rules 158 out of 170 delegates. In 2000 Bush won by 52-43 and got all 162 delegates.
The winner take all at a congressional district level can do wonders.
The final stand to deny Trump the nomination would come on and after May 10th...
Though as studies have shown total lifetime healthcare costs are highest for the healthy. So if taxing sugar actually worked to reduce obesity it would cost the nhs more. This is even before you figure in savings on pensions
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right?
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
Which is precisely why it should not be the government's job to fix people when they are overweight. Making healthy choices is each person's own responsibility and so should the consequences be.
Taking away the consequences will obviously change the behaviour. Making new consequences will also change behaviours, but not necessarily in a predictable way.
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
Which is precisely why it should not be the government's job to fix people when they are overweight. Making healthy choices is each person's own responsibility and so should the consequences be.
But the consequences of that person's poor choices are felt by more than just that person. It's reasonable for them to be nudged down a better path for the benefit of everyone else.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Shareholding, in the sense of lots of people holding realtively small numbers of shares in a company isn’t the case now, though, is it. Most shares are held by pension firms and other investment companies.
Though as studies have shown total lifetime healthcare costs are highest for the healthy. So if taxing sugar actually worked to reduce obesity it would cost the nhs more. This is even before you figure in savings on pensions
I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
You have heard of the NHS right? government over the freedom of the individual.
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.
Main cost to society from obesity is less participation in work, more sick days at work and lower productivity at work. That all adds up to more benefits and less taxes.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
And you're not with your income.
Shares do not magically appear in people's portfolios. They get purchased. With money.
The bottom line on this, though, is that if the Tories want the bill to pass it will pass. And Labour will get less income. In turn, when Labour is eventually back in power it will put in place measures that will significantly reduce the Tories' ability to raise money.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
He is also robbing the poor of their daily sugar rush. How low can you go and still aspire to be PM?
It's becoming increasingly clear that George is not going to be PM and that he does not see himself being the Chancellor who has to clear up the mess in 20I9.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off
Although to be fair, a Glaswegian might wax lyrical about Raqqa too....
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off
Market Harborough is lovely, though it did get a bit flooded last week. Good train links to London so increasingly a commuter town. The South and East of Leics are quite bucollic rural England.
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off
Although to be fair, a Glaswegian might wax lyrical about Raqqa too....
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Hmmmm
Yesterday's budget was great news for the very wealthy (that CGT cut, the ISA reforms). Not so good for the disabled.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.
I saw tweets to the effect last night that the PIPs cut is getting a poor reception among many conservative MPs. Cutting benefits to the disabled in order to give tax breaks to the middle class seems such a crass move that I wonder if it is the political equivalent to a stripper's thong - added just so that it can be discarded with a flourish. (with the money for the tax breaks being found somewhere else).
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).
Are union contributions taxed?
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.
And you're not with your income.
Shares do not magically appear in people's portfolios. They get purchased. With money.
The bottom line on this, though, is that if the Tories want the bill to pass it will pass. And Labour will get less income. In turn, when Labour is eventually back in power it will put in place measures that will significantly reduce the Tories' ability to raise money.
If Labour get less income from this, it's only because they're getting money from people who don't actually want to give their money to it.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Hmmmm
Yesterday's budget was great news for the very wealthy (that CGT cut, the ISA reforms). Not so good for the disabled.
I was surprised at the CGT cut. I suspect some effective campaigning by small business groups who were favoured. The LISAs are clearly a first step towards replacing the traditional pension but like the current pensions greatly favour the well off compared to the majority.
The budget did not actually make any changes to disability benefits other than providing an additional £1bn to ensure PIPs were properly funded. The changes in disability benefits have been gradual since 2010 with the latest tranche coming in earlier this month. Labour have run that policy into the budget for political reasons.
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
There is plenty of scope to look at disability benefits, as there are curious anomalies. The problem as ever with welfare reforms is that it is hard to target the bludgers without penalising some in genuine hardship. People who work the system are often very good at working the system.
The sugar tax is an assault on SUN readers!! Come the revolution that rag and everyone who works there or reads it will be first against the wall........
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship
Comments
Ryan 50/1 for the nomination, on for a quid.
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/710243884316672001
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
You said it wasn't the job of the government to fix people who need to be fixed. Well, in the UK it is. And will remain so as long as I can help it.
Clear enough? Unless you think a good idea cannot simultaneously be done for partisan purposes, which is just plain wrong in my opinion. Many good and fair ideas may gain traction within parties only because they see it giving them partisan advantage. Boris choosing leave primarily, many believe, because of leadership ambition, is a similar sort of thing. The right thing for the wrong reason. I'm of the view that the reason is not always important though, but it would be silly not to acknowledge the reason.
On condition that this tax is not increasing the government's share of GDP being taken in taxes.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-emissions
http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/mother-gdk651899
Was as cheap as Copenhagen gets, as far as I could see.
Breakfast (danish, juice and coffee) cost me over £10 in a bakery....
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
At a push, i'd value Ryan between 25/1-50/1 for the nomination & 50/1-100/1for POTUS - and Romney probably double or x3 Ryan's odds.
I'm just going to let my bets play out I think.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
Around with the dinosaurs...
(Edit: OK, he presented it until 1986 when I was 21. "Very early childhood" .... pfft.)
In 2008 the victory margin was 42-35 for McCain and he got under the same rules 158 out of 170 delegates.
In 2000 Bush won by 52-43 and got all 162 delegates.
The winner take all at a congressional district level can do wonders.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#5ac0619113c2
Tax Gym membership punitively if you want to save the state money
Anything from 42 to 15 for Trump.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35819218
Taking away the consequences will obviously change the behaviour. Making new consequences will also change behaviours, but not necessarily in a predictable way.
Are union contributions taxed?
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off
The bottom line on this, though, is that if the Tories want the bill to pass it will pass. And Labour will get less income. In turn, when Labour is eventually back in power it will put in place measures that will significantly reduce the Tories' ability to raise money.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Yesterday's budget was great news for the very wealthy (that CGT cut, the ISA reforms). Not so good for the disabled.
The budget did not actually make any changes to disability benefits other than providing an additional £1bn to ensure PIPs were properly funded. The changes in disability benefits have been gradual since 2010 with the latest tranche coming in earlier this month. Labour have run that policy into the budget for political reasons.
Cannot be unseen.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/7006985/What-the-Budget-means-for-you-Almost-everyones-a-winner-but-sugar-tax-is-a-pointless-sting-on-Sun-readers.html
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship