The danger of minimum wage increases is actually probably not at the very bottom of the income spectrum. A lot of people on the minimum wage are in jobs which aren't right on the margins of being worth employing at all, and aren't terribly easy to replace by exporting the job or replacing with a machine. It's fairly hard to mechanise flipping burgers, care work, or emptying your wastepaper basket at the office - not impossible, but not easy.
The danger is more a bit further up the spectrum, where there's an attempt to maintain differentials with those on minimum wages. But those jobs tend to be a bit easier to outsource.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
Amidst all these complaints from the EU and Remain that the UK Govt is unclear about Brexit we also have the wonderful inconsistencies of the EU Commission and its 27 other members:- 1. The EU and Ministers of the 27 say that we cannot discuss Brexit because we are still in the EU and have not evoked Article 50. 2. Today we learn that people in the EU Commission and EU Ministers are upset that we wish to participate in decisions of the EU such as defence, since they say we are leaving and ....
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
Max hasn't announced his housing policy yet. Liberalising the planning laws (Le sigh I guess some green belt should go much as I hate to admit it) will be on his agenda as well as large scale building schemes yielding 5 odd % for the discerning investor. BTL Landlords should probably look away now though
Yes to most of that.
I'd remove all of the complex credit withdrawal that we've currently got going on. Keep the additional stamp duty and introduce an annual 3% value charge on all non-primary residential property. New build property has a non-transferable 25 year exemption from the charge.
The idea is to reward risk takers and punish those who take the lazy option. Anyone who buys a moldering ruin and spends time and capital rebuilding it and refurbishing it will still be able to profit from it as their return will be 9-10% while an "investor" who buys an existing property which is ready to rent will get their whole yield wiped out. It will encourage money to be invested in creation of new housing stock which is exempt, or redevelopment of unliveable stock which have very high return rates.
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
Regardless of whether it's possible, I think it's approaching the problem from the wrong side. Ratcheting up wages does nothing to help the cost of living if the difference will be sucked up by housing costs and consumer debt. We need a party that sees reducing the fixed costs of the average family as a paramount goal of economic policy.
Max hasn't announced his housing policy yet. Liberalising the planning laws (Le sigh I guess some green belt should go much as I hate to admit it) will be on his agenda as well as large scale building schemes yielding 5 odd % for the discerning investor. BTL Landlords should probably look away now though
As long as planning is centralised for key infrastructure I don't care. Let's put the Heathrow (Runways 3 and 4) Act through Parliament and have the spades in the ground a week later.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
Absolutely. If it becomes obvious to the country that Brexit is a mistake there will be a way found of negating it. Nothing is ever written in stone (leaving aside the EdStone), 1975 was overturned, 2016 may or may not be.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. Rancid hypocrisy at the EU, quelle surprise.
Just had a bloody intense 20 minutes. Dog ran off (didn't know she'd returned to the house...), kind lady knocked on the door to tell me which way she'd run. So, I go searching, and find another kind (and clever) lady coming the other way. She'd tempted the dog with crisps, and had her in the back of her car, looking for her owner and saw me with a lead but no dog.
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
Regardless of whether it's possible, I think it's approaching the problem from the wrong side. Ratcheting up wages does nothing to help the cost of living if the difference will be sucked up by housing costs and consumer debt. We need a party that sees reducing the fixed costs of the average family as a paramount goal of economic policy.
Max hasn't announced his housing policy yet. Liberalising the planning laws (Le sigh I guess some green belt should go much as I hate to admit it) will be on his agenda as well as large scale building schemes yielding 5 odd % for the discerning investor. BTL Landlords should probably look away now though
As long as planning is centralised for key infrastructure I don't care. Let's put the Heathrow (Runways 3 and 4) Act through Parliament and have the spades in the ground a week later.
Yes, both runways would get the go ahead today. Local residents would get an option to take 125% of their property value or live with it and take a 25% market value bribe.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
Absolutely. If it becomes obvious to the country that Brexit is a mistake there will be a way found of negating it. Nothing is ever written in stone (leaving aside the EdStone), 1975 was overturned, 2016 may or may not be.
This seems to have really scarred some people deeply. I'm sorry you're so cut up about it, but really, buck up. This is an embarrassing display.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
That article doesn;t quote a single republican apart from one arch Trump critic who worked for Romney and McCain.
They were nice guys, credible candidates, they played by the rules. Guess what, they still got beat.
They weren't great candidates, but the GOP candidate was always going to be second favourite in 2008 and 2012. In 2008, the economy was tanking and the outgoing Republican President had catastrophic poll ratings. Four years later, it's always hard against an incumbent, the economy was shaky but improving, and Bin Laden was dead.
McCain and Romney could've done better, but didn't do badly, and didn't have huge numbers show up to actively vote against them with bad consequences for the ticket.
In 2016, in theory it's the GOP's "turn", and there is a poor Democrat candidate in many respects. Yet their down ticket candidates fear that not only will Trump lose, but he's actively motivating people to vote against them. If that fear turns out to be justified, then it's an avoidable disaster in the way McCain and Romney's failed campaigns never were.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
Just call it the Free Party.
Everybody likes a free party.....
The Free Citizens of the UK Official party, FCUK-Off.
The danger of minimum wage increases is actually probably not at the very bottom of the income spectrum. A lot of people on the minimum wage are in jobs which aren't right on the margins of being worth employing at all, and aren't terribly easy to replace by exporting the job or replacing with a machine. It's fairly hard to mechanise flipping burgers, care work, or emptying your wastepaper basket at the office - not impossible, but not easy.
The danger is more a bit further up the spectrum, where there's an attempt to maintain differentials with those on minimum wages. But those jobs tend to be a bit easier to outsource.
Well that's actually the point of £12.50, it is IMO the equilibrium of a high wage society. Beyond that and automation or outsourcing becomes a serious alternative and below that the government will need to subsidise wages.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
I cannot see how Brexit could be reversed. Except this way: the EU might come up with a new offer post A50. The emergency brake on free movement that Cameron wanted, plus some glittery bits and bobs that mean nothing, but look good, and which would allow Theresa May to say the EU deal has significantly changed.
It would cause civil war in Tory ranks, but if by then the economy is showing serious signs of damage, and - as you say - voters have got a heavy case of Bremorse, TMay might seize the opportunity.
Note also Sarko's remarks about a new Treaty to keep the Brits inside.
But the Brits would be hugely doubtful of European intentions behind this offer. The EU would have to give us the swivel chair AND the use of your wife at weekends before we got even to the "Hmmmmmmm......." stroky-beard level of engagement. And they just can't do that.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
Just call it the Free Party.
Everybody likes a free party.....
The Free Citizens of the UK Official party, FCUK-Off.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
Just call it the Free Party.
Everybody likes a free party.....
The Free Citizens of the UK Official party, FCUK-Off.
''McCain and Romney could've done better, but didn't do badly, and didn't have huge numbers show up to actively vote against them with bad consequences for the ticket.''
The critique I read on here is that Trump isn;t winning because he's a racist and a sexist.
And yet when the republicans deploy a non-sexist non racist open door immigration candidate, they still lose.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
Just wanted to add, members drink every Friday. Once we have enough money to buy a swanky London premises then it will be a subsidised bar as well.
No out of touch elite here...
I've been told I'm part of the elite many times, might as well take advantage of it! Anyway anyone is free to join and members fees can be used to buy and subsidise premises outside of London as well. A new working man's club for the elites.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
I cannot see how Brexit could be reversed. Except this way: the EU might come up with a new offer post A50. The emergency brake on free movement that Cameron wanted, plus some glittery bits and bobs that mean nothing, but look good, and which would allow Theresa May to say the EU deal has significantly changed.
It would cause civil war in Tory ranks, but if by then the economy is showing serious signs of damage, and - as you say - voters have got a heavy case of Bremorse, TMay might seize the opportunity.
Note also Sarko's remarks about a new Treaty to keep the Brits inside.
But the Brits would be hugely doubtful of European intentions behind this offer. The EU would have to give us the swivel chair AND the use of your wife at weekends before we got even to the "Hmmmmmmm......." stroky-beard level of engagement. And they just can't do that.
I'd definitely be up for use of Sarkozy's wife on weekends.
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
Regardless of whether it's possible, I think it's approaching the problem from the wrong side. Ratcheting up wages does nothing to help the cost of living if the difference will be sucked up by housing costs and consumer debt. We need a party that sees reducing the fixed costs of the average family as a paramount goal of economic policy.
Max hasn't announced his housing policy yet. Liberalising the planning laws (Le sigh I guess some green belt should go much as I hate to admit it) will be on his agenda as well as large scale building schemes yielding 5 odd % for the discerning investor. BTL Landlords should probably look away now though
As long as planning is centralised for key infrastructure I don't care. Let's put the Heathrow (Runways 3 and 4) Act through Parliament and have the spades in the ground a week later.
Yes, both runways would get the go ahead today. Local residents would get an option to take 125% of their property value or live with it and take a 25% market value bribe.
Good, same as pretty much everywhere else in the developed world does!
Sign me up, although if you're taking over @Patrick's party I'm a member already!
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Just wanted to add, members drink every Friday. Once we have enough money to buy a swanky London premises then it will be a subsidised bar as well.
No out of touch elite here...
I've been told I'm part of the elite many times, might as well take advantage of it! Anyway anyone is free to join and members fees can be used to buy and subsidise premises outside of London as well. A new working man's club for the elites.
Max, were you once black balled from White’s Gentleman’s Club perchance?
Amidst all these complaints from the EU and Remain that the UK Govt is unclear about Brexit we also have the wonderful inconsistencies of the EU Commission and its 27 other members:- 1. The EU and Ministers of the 27 say that we cannot discuss Brexit because we are still in the EU and have not evoked Article 50. 2. Today we learn that people in the EU Commission and EU Ministers are upset that we wish to participate in decisions of the EU such as defence, since they say we are leaving and .....
The answer to the riddle is that they think the British should stop being a bunch of faff-arses and invoke Article 50 so everybody can get on with the negotiations.
Even after A50 is invoked, we remain full members of the EU with all the rights and obligations that entails. But if the rest of the EU wants to curtail our rights, I'm sure HMG would be happy to overlook our obligations...
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
I cannot see how Brexit could be reversed. Except this way: the EU might come up with a new offer post A50. The emergency brake on free movement that Cameron wanted, plus some glittery bits and bobs that mean nothing, but look good, and which would allow Theresa May to say the EU deal has significantly changed.
It would cause civil war in Tory ranks, but if by then the economy is showing serious signs of damage, and - as you say - voters have got a heavy case of Bremorse, TMay might seize the opportunity.
Note also Sarko's remarks about a new Treaty to keep the Brits inside.
But the Brits would be hugely doubtful of European intentions behind this offer. The EU would have to give us the swivel chair AND the use of your wife at weekends before we got even to the "Hmmmmmmm......." stroky-beard level of engagement. And they just can't do that.
I'd definitely be up for use of Sarkozy's wife on weekends.
Oi, you're too busy forming a new Party.
I think it would be your first "back of the queue" moment....
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
Name reminiscent of the Free Democratic Party in Germany, with several policies in common. Given political parties are coalitions and end up compromising with interest groups, it would probably look very similar to the FDP in practice. The "party of dentists" bobs along at 5-7% of the proportionately represented electorate.
Very interesting VI data from YouGov, but absolutely no accompanying comment from OGH .... now I wonder why that should be? How long since the Tories had a poll lead of 19% over Labour? Immediately post the Falklands War victory at a guess, or maybe not even then.
Speaking of YouGov, 2016 has been a fairly spectacular year for them, with the share price having increase from 132p to 232p currently. Not sure why. I bought some shares about 5 years ago, realising that this was far preferable to spending hours undertaking their tedious political and consumer surveys and receiving a mere pittance in return. Until this year, the share price had gone nowhere but a 75% hike over the last 8 months has been a bit special.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
Amidst all these complaints from the EU and Remain that the UK Govt is unclear about Brexit we also have the wonderful inconsistencies of the EU Commission and its 27 other members:- 1. The EU and Ministers of the 27 say that we cannot discuss Brexit because we are still in the EU and have not evoked Article 50. 2. Today we learn that people in the EU Commission and EU Ministers are upset that we wish to participate in decisions of the EU such as defence, since they say we are leaving and .....
The answer to the riddle is that they think the British should stop being a bunch of faff-arses and invoke Article 50 so everybody can get on with the negotiations.
Even after A50 is invoked, we remain full members of the EU with all the rights and obligations that entails. But if the rest of the EU wants to curtail our rights, I'm sure HMG would be happy to overlook our obligations...
Well indeed. No invites to the top table and we can conveniently 'forget' the £1bn monthly cheques we send them.
''McCain and Romney could've done better, but didn't do badly, and didn't have huge numbers show up to actively vote against them with bad consequences for the ticket.''
The critique I read on here is that Trump isn;t winning because he's a racist and a sexist.
And yet when the republicans deploy a non-sexist non racist open door immigration candidate, they still lose.
Bottom line, they just lose.
Obama is a better candidate than McCain and Romney were. They lost because of that.
Clinton is a better candidate than Trump, is a crazy racist who boasts about abusing women.
Very interesting VI data from YouGov, but absolutely no accompanying comment from OGH .... now I wonder why that should be? How long since the Tories had a poll lead of 19% over Labour? Immediately post the Falklands War victory at a guess, or maybe not even then.
Speaking of YouGov, 2016 has been a fairly spectacular year for them, with the share price having increase from 132p to 232p currently. Not sure why. I bought some shares about 5 years ago, realising that this was far preferable to spending hours undertaking their tedious political and consumer surveys and receiving a mere pittance in return. Until this year, the share price had gone nowhere but a 75% hike over the last 8 months has been a bit special.
OGH has gone native, it's really quite sad. I thought he'd have reconciled himself by now. A rare incumbency by-election win spun as loss, a poll where OGH dreams UKIP will disappear and a reluctance to make threads for the VI at the usual rate.
Very interesting VI data from YouGov, but absolutely no accompanying comment from OGH .... now I wonder why that should be? How long since the Tories had a poll lead of 19% over Labour? Immediately post the Falklands War victory at a guess, or maybe not even then.
Speaking of YouGov, 2016 has been a fairly spectacular year for them, with the share price having increase from 132p to 232p currently. Not sure why. I bought some shares about 5 years ago, realising that this was far preferable to spending hours undertaking their tedious political and consumer surveys and receiving a mere pittance in return. Until this year, the share price had gone nowhere but a 75% hike over the last 8 months has been a bit special.
The implication seems to be that if only the Republicans had chosen a better candidate, a candidate the democrats, laughably, approved of a bit more, they'd be winning.
I don;t buy that. I think the repubs would be still be losing, but in a nicer, more acceptable and politically correct way. Such nice chaps. Such a shame.
However people would like to cut it, US politics has become completely tribal. It's all about your identity. And the democrats' tribe is bigger.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
I thought anyone who doesn't support Jez is a Tory?
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
I cannot see how Brexit could be reversed. Except this way: the EU might come up with a new offer post A50. The emergency brake on free movement that Cameron wanted, plus some glittery bits and bobs that mean nothing, but look good, and which would allow Theresa May to say the EU deal has significantly changed.
It would cause civil war in Tory ranks, but if by then the economy is showing serious signs of damage, and - as you say - voters have got a heavy case of Bremorse, TMay might seize the opportunity.
Note also Sarko's remarks about a new Treaty to keep the Brits inside.
But the Brits would be hugely doubtful of European intentions behind this offer. The EU would have to give us the swivel chair AND the use of your wife at weekends before we got even to the "Hmmmmmmm......." stroky-beard level of engagement. And they just can't do that.
I'd definitely be up for use of Sarkozy's wife on weekends.
Oi, you're too busy forming a new Party.
I think it would be your first "back of the queue" moment....
"use of Sarkozy's wife! Jeez... how sexist .... She is human being FFS.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
I was under no illusions he was a Tory! The other half of his slogan was "the anti-Socialist candidate". This was 1932, interesting time to be in East London.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
I thought anyone who doesn't support Jez is a Tory?
The implication seems to be that if only the Republicans had chosen a better candidate, a candidate the democrats, laughably, approved of a bit more, they'd be winning.
I don;t buy that. I think the repubs would be still be losing, but in a nicer, more acceptable and politically correct way. Such nice chaps. Such a shame.
However people would like to cut it, US politics has become completely tribal. It's all about your identity. And the democrats' tribe is bigger.
And by 2020 it will be even bigger.
It's not about getting the democrats, its about getting someone who will also get the independents. Obama was betting at getting enough independents along with firing up the Democratic base to vote in enough numbers. Trump has alienated any women and minority independent as well anyone with a college education, and pissed of a large enough portion of the educate republican base.
It is a bit harder for Republicans, but as Romney coming close and Bush winning twice, you can win if you have a decent candidate. Which the GOP do not at all.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
I thought anyone who doesn't support Jez is a Tory?
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
I believe McDonalds in Zurich pays close to twice that.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result. Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades. “After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
Article 50 would allow the deadline to be postponed (for 1000 years, for example), but there would have to be unanimous agreement.
If just one country decided to make a reduction in Britain's rebate - or any other quid pro quo it fancied - a condition of the postponement, then what?
The implication seems to be that if only the Republicans had chosen a better candidate, a candidate the democrats, laughably, approved of a bit more, they'd be winning.
I don;t buy that. I think the repubs would be still be losing, but in a nicer, more acceptable and politically correct way. Such nice chaps. Such a shame.
However people would like to cut it, US politics has become completely tribal. It's all about your identity. And the democrats' tribe is bigger.
And by 2020 it will be even bigger.
You don't think the GOP would be doing better with a candidate with a somewhat better than -30 net approval rating? Or one who didn't cause prominent Republicans in key states to say they'd not vote for him? Or one that hadn't lost all three debates badly? Or one that hadn't boasted of sexually assaulting women because his money entitled him to do so?
Come on - that strains credulity.
It's true US politics is more tribal than it was. But there are plenty of people who voted for Dubya and for Obama. There are plenty of undecided voters months out from an election. There are plenty of registered independents. There are plenty of people who vote in GOP governors, senators and congressmen.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
1. No more hate speech laws, no more safe spaces. Open discussion of any idea, however distasteful they might be.
2. The nation will seek free trade with any party who is willing and generally have low import tariffs for nations who don't. The nation will also work within the WTO to eliminate NTBs on a sector by sector basis rather than seek an imposition of standards in the way that the US does.
3. The nation will seek a free market solution to commerce and labour with a base income of £12.50/h. With that we will eliminate payroll taxes and lower corporation tax to 12.5% for small and medium business and 15% for big business. We will also eliminate all in working benefits and tax credits and out of work benefits will be made on a contributory basis with a minimum 12 months of work in the last 24 months required to qualify. Unemployment benefits will be paid for up to 12 months at a rate of 60% of previous gross income.
4. We don't give a shit if you're gay, black, white or whatever. Everyone is welcome as long as they welcome everyone else.
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
Some interesting thoughts and ideas. It would be great to have a party that placed personal responsibility above entitlement, which of course we used to have with the Tories. Even they seemed to have abandoned that principle.
Both Labour and the LibDems in times past have tried 'decapitation strategies' against the Tories, and the evidence suggests that making such obvious is counter-productive. Labour also tried and failed last time against Clegg. Those big hitters like fall, such as Portillo or Balls, tend to be lucky accidents.
Balls was very much targeted by the Conservatives in 2015 (as well as 2010), as was Portillo by Labour in 1997. The above average swings reflect that.
I do actually agree that decapitation strategies are a mistake in terms of best use of resources - you just go for the seats you're best able to win rather than making some kind of point of it. But there's no doubt all parties see it as a bonus to get a big name, and tend to put some extra effort into doing so.
The big problem with the LDs' decapitation strategy in 2005 was that they failed to make enough progress against Labour so that when 2010 rolled around, they had very few Labour marginals to target.
''There are plenty of undecided voters months out from an election. There are plenty of registered independents. There are plenty of people who vote in GOP governors, senators and congressmen.''
YOu are correct of course, but there is now manifestly a tribe of (I guess mainly white, mostly male?) voters who have been pushed to the margins by globalisation etc. It's these voters who catapulted Trump to the nomination.
They won;t vote for a centrist candidate. And so a nice person charismatic centrist Republican is just a dog with different fleas.
Very interesting VI data from YouGov, but absolutely no accompanying comment from OGH .... now I wonder why that should be? How long since the Tories had a poll lead of 19% over Labour? Immediately post the Falklands War victory at a guess, or maybe not even then.
Speaking of YouGov, 2016 has been a fairly spectacular year for them, with the share price having increase from 132p to 232p currently. Not sure why. I bought some shares about 5 years ago, realising that this was far preferable to spending hours undertaking their tedious political and consumer surveys and receiving a mere pittance in return. Until this year, the share price had gone nowhere but a 75% hike over the last 8 months has been a bit special.
The 19% lead isn't a proper poll per se, only if you ignore one party from the question.
Still it's not as impressive as Dave's 28% lead over Labour.
So I've been thinking about it for a while, I think it is time to form a new political party. I'm going to call it the Free Liberal Party (FLP).
The party stands for:
Free speech Free trade Free market
In order of importance.
In practice that means:
snip
Anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
Some nice policies. Duff name. You don't get anywhere with a duff name.
But it provides a good slang moniker - "Up the Duffers!"
I also don't see a big, unifying, differentiating theme.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
A very good point. I wish the Taxpayer's Alliance would become a Cooperative Party of the right.
Ta.
Do the Ratepayer's Alliance still field candidates locally? My greatgrandfather was a Ratepayer's Alliance/Conservative (in Leyton would you believe).
"Ratepayers" is one of the many euphemisms for "Conservative". Others include:
- Residents - [Local area name] independents - Save [something or other] - Independent
I was under no illusions he was a Tory! The other half of his slogan was "the anti-Socialist candidate". This was 1932, interesting time to be in East London.
Round here most of our [Local] Independents are ex Lib Dems waiting for a sex scandal to blow over.
Good to see it getting an airing again all these years!
Slightly dodgy in that 1970s light entertainment way.
And like most of the '70s light entertainment sitting in the archives, destined to be never broadcast again except as fodder for millennial feminists on those "how did we ever find this funny" compilation clip shows!
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
I believe McDonalds in Zurich pays close to twice that.
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
I believe McDonalds in Zurich pays close to twice that.
How much does a big Mac cost there?
No idea. But last week I paid nearly 9 quid for a Starbucks hot chocolate at Zurich airport that costs three quid in the UK. Delays!
What's most interesting about that polling is the consistent movement of Independents towards Clinton over the past month.
I'm torn between thinking that as election day gets nearer more Republicans will decide to bite the bullet and vote Republican narrowing the gap and the other thought being that the LV screen the polling companies used last time crushes the Dem vote which resulted in the polls massively undershooting Obama's vote and the Trump effect could mean that are doing it again .
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
I believe McDonalds in Zurich pays close to twice that.
How much does a big Mac cost there?
No idea. But last week I paid nearly 9 quid for a Starbucks hot chocolate at Zurich airport that costs three quid in the UK. Delays!
Three quid for a freaking cup of Hot Chocolate! I think I'll stick to my policy of only buying alcoholic drinks. It may not be much cheaper but has got to be better value.
There's quite a gulf between the two major spreadbetting firms as regards the ECV votes forecast to be won by the two major protagonists in the forthcoming POTUS election, so much so that there's currently an unusual teeny weeny arb opportunity in the case of Clinton, despite the firms' 10/12 point spreads.
Sporting Index goes:
Clinton .... 319 - 329 Trump ...... 209 - 219
Spreadex goes:
Clinton .... 330 - 342 Trump ...... 196 - 208
Currently, Nate Silver's 538.com has Hillary winning 341 ECVs, with The Donald bringing up the rear on 196. If he's right, and it's a BIG if, then a buy of Hillary at 329 with Sporting looks like the bet .... I'm on, modestly, but DYOR .... Spreadbetting is, as they say, high risk /high reward.
Trump up by just 2 in Georgia. I believe McCain won it 52-47 in 2008 and Romney by a little more last time. The poll numbers are 44-42 with Johnson on 9 and 4% to decide. It's only a small swing to Clinton - 1.5% since 2008 and as I say possibly a shade more from 2012.
The most pessimistic outcome for HRC I can see is she loses OH and IA and still wins 308-230. I think there's quite a bit of upside for those looking to back HRC EV numbers.
The theory of the "shy Trumpers" has been fairly well debunked by Nate Silver and a few others. The breaking of Independent voters to HRC suggests, by contrast, the scale of her potential victory might be underestimated - AZ, GA and a few others ?
There's quite a gulf between the two major spreadbetting firms as regards the ECV votes forecast to be won by the two major protagonists in the forthcoming POTUS election, so much so that there's currently an unusual teeny weeny arb opportunity in the case of Clinton, despite the firms' 10/12 point spreads.
Sporting Index goes:
Clinton .... 319 - 329 Trump ...... 209 - 219
Spreadex goes:
Clinton .... 330 - 342 Trump ...... 196 - 208
Currently, Nate Silver's 538.com has Hillary winning 341 ECVs, with The Donald bringing up the rear on 196. If he's right, and it's a BIG if, then a buy of Hillary at 329 with Sporting looks like the bet .... I'm on, modestly, but DYOR .... Spreadbetting is, as they say, high risk /high reward.
On a technical note - Sell Trump at 209 rather than buy Hillary.
You get a free punt on McMullin, UT. Also he could fall under a bus yet...
Trump up by just 2 in Georgia. I believe McCain won it 52-47 in 2008 and Romney by a little more last time. The poll numbers are 44-42 with Johnson on 9 and 4% to decide. It's only a small swing to Clinton - 1.5% since 2008 and as I say possibly a shade more from 2012.
The most pessimistic outcome for HRC I can see is she loses OH and IA and still wins 308-230. I think there's quite a bit of upside for those looking to back HRC EV numbers.
The theory of the "shy Trumpers" has been fairly well debunked by Nate Silver and a few others. The breaking of Independent voters to HRC suggests, by contrast, the scale of her potential victory might be underestimated - AZ, GA and a few others ?
MrsB, probably because the votes are tight and, whilst distrusting Clinton, they're far more disturbed by the prospect of Trump winning.
I do wonder if the third chap might win Utah.
Not sure whether there is enough correction in the polling for shy Trumpeters
I am not sure if there are any shy Trumpsters left. They are either very loud Trumpsters, or they have left the building ...
As someone who is appalled by what a Clinton presidency will mean for the country, and even worse, for the balance of the Supreme Court for the next quarter century, I cannot bring myself to support Trump. My wife, who cannot stand Hillary, and whose gross income will probably be more than decimated and then taxed more under Hillary, also finds herself each time she is about to reconcile herself to voting Trump having that resolve destroyed by that day's unconscionable from his mouth.
MrsB, probably because the votes are tight and, whilst distrusting Clinton, they're far more disturbed by the prospect of Trump winning.
I do wonder if the third chap might win Utah.
Not sure whether there is enough correction in the polling for shy Trumpeters
I am not sure if there are any shy Trumpsters left. They are either very loud Trumpsters, or they have left the building ...
As someone who is appalled by what a Clinton presidency will mean for the country, and even worse, for the balance of the Supreme Court for the next quarter century, I cannot bring myself to support Trump. My wife, who cannot stand Hillary, and whose gross income will probably be more than decimated and then taxed more under Hillary, also finds herself each time she is about to reconcile herself to voting Trump having that resolve destroyed by that day's unconscionable from his mouth.
What are you going to do then, skip the topline and go down ballot GOP ?
The high level of unemployment resulting from the high minimum wage and lack of tax credits will certainly help to reduce migration. As will the rocketing crime wave, as desperate people with no welfare support and no way of earning a living are forced to steal to survive.
No way of earning a living? The minimum wage is a real living wage and the economic boost from paying people more has always worked out with more jobs being created than being lost. You sound like the Tories and big business in 1997.
You're not taking into account the sad truth that a significant number of people are simply not capable of performing work that any company would value at £12.50/h.
I think everyone is capable of that, they just need the right motivation, dedication and training to achieve it. In all honesty it's not a massive jump. If you add employers NI to the current NLW that's already £8.20/h, the NLW would have to rise by 8-9% per year to meet the five year target. A lot of the additonal cost of employment can be reclaimed through higher prices and wage reductions at the top.
Anyway, I know it's possible since even the lowest worker in Switzerland receives wages of at least 18Fr/h which is higher than £12.50 even with a more favourable exchange rate.
I believe McDonalds in Zurich pays close to twice that.
How much does a big Mac cost there?
No idea. But last week I paid nearly 9 quid for a Starbucks hot chocolate at Zurich airport that costs three quid in the UK. Delays!
You pay the equivalent of about £9 for a coffee in Australia these days. I had to ration myself when I was there in August.
But there we are. Worth noting such varying prices also occurred historically for differing things. It's why comparing prices over long periods can be tricky.
Mr. Jim, gender fluid persons. Or they could be berdaches.
Trump up by just 2 in Georgia. I believe McCain won it 52-47 in 2008 and Romney by a little more last time. The poll numbers are 44-42 with Johnson on 9 and 4% to decide. It's only a small swing to Clinton - 1.5% since 2008 and as I say possibly a shade more from 2012.
The most pessimistic outcome for HRC I can see is she loses OH and IA and still wins 308-230. I think there's quite a bit of upside for those looking to back HRC EV numbers.
The theory of the "shy Trumpers" has been fairly well debunked by Nate Silver and a few others. The breaking of Independent voters to HRC suggests, by contrast, the scale of her potential victory might be underestimated - AZ, GA and a few others ?
Lefties like Nate Silver and their *cough* equivalents in the UK, always understate the right's shy factor, which was one of the reasons why the Tories won against the odds in May 2015.
Comments
The danger is more a bit further up the spectrum, where there's an attempt to maintain differentials with those on minimum wages. But those jobs tend to be a bit easier to outsource.
Tusk said he would be happiest if Britain could stay in the EU after all, rowing back on the outcome of the June referendum result.
Despite May’s insistence at dinner that there would be no second referendum, the European council president said his preference would still be to keep 28 members not only for the next month, but also for the next years and decades.
“After the decision in the UK we have to respect the decision of the referendum. If it is reversible or not, this is in the British hands,” he said, at a press conference in the early hours. “I would be the happiest one if it reversible but we now we have to start our formal works.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/21/theresa-may-uk-centre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
That's entirely irrelevant while British opinion remains pro-Brexit, but it means that if there was a substantial shift then the formal "But once we've triggered A50 it's inevitable" argument probably doesn't hold. A way would be found.
I'd remove all of the complex credit withdrawal that we've currently got going on. Keep the additional stamp duty and introduce an annual 3% value charge on all non-primary residential property. New build property has a non-transferable 25 year exemption from the charge.
The idea is to reward risk takers and punish those who take the lazy option. Anyone who buys a moldering ruin and spends time and capital rebuilding it and refurbishing it will still be able to profit from it as their return will be 9-10% while an "investor" who buys an existing property which is ready to rent will get their whole yield wiped out. It will encourage money to be invested in creation of new housing stock which is exempt, or redevelopment of unliveable stock which have very high return rates.
Nothing is ever written in stone (leaving aside the EdStone), 1975 was overturned, 2016 may or may not be.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. Rancid hypocrisy at the EU, quelle surprise.
Just had a bloody intense 20 minutes. Dog ran off (didn't know she'd returned to the house...), kind lady knocked on the door to tell me which way she'd run. So, I go searching, and find another kind (and clever) lady coming the other way. She'd tempted the dog with crisps, and had her in the back of her car, looking for her owner and saw me with a lead but no dog.
.....
Everybody likes a free party.....
Clinton 45 .. Trump 33
https://localtvwtvr.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/oct-21-2016-report-final.pdf
Clinton 42 .. Trump 44
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/10/21/ajc-poll-trump-and-clinton-deadlocked-georgia/
The critique I read on here is that Trump isn;t winning because he's a racist and a sexist.
And yet when the republicans deploy a non-sexist non racist open door immigration candidate, they still lose.
Bottom line, they just lose.
I'd call it the Taxpayer's Alliance. And have it operate as a political wing, or takeover of, or whatever, the Taxpayer's Alliance. That's basically what it is - it's the Taxpayer's Alliance/Vote Leave.
Clinton 46 .. Trump 40
https://morningconsult.com/2016/10/21/clinton-wins-third-debate-accept-results-chris-wallace/
Sign me up, although if you're taking over @Patrick's party I'm a member already!
I think it would be your first "back of the queue" moment....
How long since the Tories had a poll lead of 19% over Labour? Immediately post the Falklands War victory at a guess, or maybe not even then.
Speaking of YouGov, 2016 has been a fairly spectacular year for them, with the share price having increase from 132p to 232p currently. Not sure why. I bought some shares about 5 years ago, realising that this was far preferable to spending hours undertaking their tedious political and consumer surveys and receiving a mere pittance in return. Until this year, the share price had gone nowhere but a 75% hike over the last 8 months has been a bit special.
Clinton is a better candidate than Trump, is a crazy racist who boasts about abusing women.
They are both correct statements...
A rare incumbency by-election win spun as loss, a poll where OGH dreams UKIP will disappear and a reluctance to make threads for the VI at the usual rate.
Just noted my RBS shares are back in the black !
The implication seems to be that if only the Republicans had chosen a better candidate, a candidate the democrats, laughably, approved of a bit more, they'd be winning.
I don;t buy that. I think the repubs would be still be losing, but in a nicer, more acceptable and politically correct way. Such nice chaps. Such a shame.
However people would like to cut it, US politics has become completely tribal. It's all about your identity. And the democrats' tribe is bigger.
And by 2020 it will be even bigger.
- Residents
- [Local area name] independents
- Save [something or other]
- Independent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amZsdpLXcIo
It is a bit harder for Republicans, but as Romney coming close and Bush winning twice, you can win if you have a decent candidate. Which the GOP do not at all.
If just one country decided to make a reduction in Britain's rebate - or any other quid pro quo it fancied - a condition of the postponement, then what?
Come on - that strains credulity.
It's true US politics is more tribal than it was. But there are plenty of people who voted for Dubya and for Obama. There are plenty of undecided voters months out from an election. There are plenty of registered independents. There are plenty of people who vote in GOP governors, senators and congressmen.
YOu are correct of course, but there is now manifestly a tribe of (I guess mainly white, mostly male?) voters who have been pushed to the margins by globalisation etc. It's these voters who catapulted Trump to the nomination.
They won;t vote for a centrist candidate. And so a nice person charismatic centrist Republican is just a dog with different fleas.
Still it's not as impressive as Dave's 28% lead over Labour.
I think we have both other varieties too.
The Best Of DVDs are excellent.
Rowan Atkinson opens a window: "Why don't you grow up, you little bastards!" Slams it shut.
Pamela Stephenson: "What's the matter, darling?"
RA: "Nothing, just talking to the plants."
I do wonder if the third chap might win Utah.
Still astonishing to look back at our polling for six months. Neck and neck. But not on polling day.
Even with a megahuge Trump blowout these won't fall.
Given the Election is in 18 days, it is better than the bank.
DYOR etc.
There's quite a gulf between the two major spreadbetting firms as regards the ECV votes forecast to be won by the two major protagonists in the forthcoming POTUS election, so much so that there's currently an unusual teeny weeny arb opportunity in the case of Clinton, despite the firms' 10/12 point spreads.
Sporting Index goes:
Clinton .... 319 - 329
Trump ...... 209 - 219
Spreadex goes:
Clinton .... 330 - 342
Trump ...... 196 - 208
Currently, Nate Silver's 538.com has Hillary winning 341 ECVs, with The Donald bringing up the rear on 196. If he's right, and it's a BIG if, then a buy of Hillary at 329 with Sporting looks like the bet .... I'm on, modestly, but DYOR .... Spreadbetting is, as they say, high risk /high reward.
News from the great Delta hub itself:
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/10/21/ajc-poll-trump-and-clinton-deadlocked-georgia/
Trump up by just 2 in Georgia. I believe McCain won it 52-47 in 2008 and Romney by a little more last time. The poll numbers are 44-42 with Johnson on 9 and 4% to decide. It's only a small swing to Clinton - 1.5% since 2008 and as I say possibly a shade more from 2012.
The most pessimistic outcome for HRC I can see is she loses OH and IA and still wins 308-230. I think there's quite a bit of upside for those looking to back HRC EV numbers.
The theory of the "shy Trumpers" has been fairly well debunked by Nate Silver and a few others. The breaking of Independent voters to HRC suggests, by contrast, the scale of her potential victory might be underestimated - AZ, GA and a few others ?
You get a free punt on McMullin, UT.
Also he could fall under a bus yet...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/21/in-several-key-states-the-early-vote-has-shifted-heavily-to-the-democrats-since-2012/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_earlyvote-910a:homepage/story
As someone who is appalled by what a Clinton presidency will mean for the country, and even worse, for the balance of the Supreme Court for the next quarter century, I cannot bring myself to support Trump. My wife, who cannot stand Hillary, and whose gross income will probably be more than decimated and then taxed more under Hillary, also finds herself each time she is about to reconcile herself to voting Trump having that resolve destroyed by that day's unconscionable from his mouth.
But there we are. Worth noting such varying prices also occurred historically for differing things. It's why comparing prices over long periods can be tricky.
Mr. Jim, gender fluid persons. Or they could be berdaches.