The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
That's what happens when you have a system where money goes in, and money goes out without anyone really knowing what they get for their money. To keep the system running smoothly without too much anger people need to be satisfied, and feel like they are getting a fair deal. Currently from a student perspective, after you graduate you have a massive pile of debt and pay taxes at a higher rate than everyone else in the workforce, while pissing away a large proportion of your money on rent (which are being pushed ever higher by those that benefited from the explosion in house prices) and generally miserable wage growth. The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.
I have said it in here many times - a system in which most people think they do not own a fair stake is a system that cannot be sustained. It is in the self-interests of the wealthy and of cash-rich corporations to do their bit to ensure that people feel they have a shot, that things are not completely stacked against them. Putting money that you can never hope to spend offshore instead of actively agreeing to its redistribution is ultimately an act of self harm - if not for you then for your kids or their kids. At some stage, people will rise up and do something about it and you will have no say and no control. Much better to work with governments now than to leave it to the time when Jeremy and John control the levers of power.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
For all the talk of the press being ranged against Labour, Metro has seemed quite sympathetic to them in recent months whenever I've had a look at it on the bus.
me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
Ummm, both Corbyn and McDonnel this morning on live TV said they want to walk away from the single market
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
That's what happens when you have a system where money goes in, and money goes out without anyone really knowing what they get for their money. To keep the system running smoothly without too much anger people need to be satisfied, and feel like they are getting a fair deal. Currently from a student perspective, after you graduate you have a massive pile of debt and pay taxes at a higher rate than everyone else in the workforce, while pissing away a large proportion of your money on rent (which are being pushed ever higher by those that benefited from the explosion in house prices) and generally miserable wage growth. The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.
I have said it in here many times - a system in which most people think they do not own a fair stake is a system that cannot be sustained. It is in the self-interests of the wealthy and of cash-rich corporations to do their bit to ensure that people feel they have a shot, that things are not completely stacked against them. Putting money that you can never hope to spend offshore instead of actively agreeing to its redistribution is ultimately an act of self harm - if not for you then for your kids or their kids. At some stage, people will rise up and do something about it and you will have no say and no control. Much better to work with governments now than to leave it to the time when Jeremy and John control the levers of power.
In Britain we have avoided revolution by the wealthy establishment empathising with those below them, rather than humiliating them. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten this.
The theory is that so long as communism offered an alternative model, capitalist countries needed to run their economies on the basis of some equity with a proportion of the benefits of their superior economic performance shared with workers. After communism was defeated, capitalism was liberated to appropriate most of its benefits to the owners of capital; the rest of us could go hang.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
No - not aimed at you at all Mr Chameleon.
Okay, sorry about that then! I'm just painfully aware that Bobajob and myself overlap on a number of areas.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Suggest you go back and re-read what HS2 is doing and why.
After nearly 8 years, remind me what the better alternative is to increase the track capacity on the WCML, ECML and MML?
oh, and the billions of £ of contracts for Phase 1 are signed, sealed and being delivered.
The reason the Tories couldn't effectively attack Corbynomics is that it's just reheated Brexonomics.
When you tour the country in a bus with "£350m for the NHS" on the side, you can't convince people the other guys fantasy numbers don't add up
And they follow the same playbook. People will vote for free stuff. The SNP do it too, but at least they have a funding stream for it courtesy of Barnett (as long as they don't actually separate)
That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.
Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.
The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.
The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.
It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.
Why should the public be forced to take out care insurance? Why can't they take their chances if they so wish, subject to having a safety net? The evidence suggests that in practice that's what the public want to do. Insurers have seen no appetite for care insurance even among the wealthy.
The public has looked at the problem in the election campaign and has very firmly formed the view that its preferred solution is not to need long term care. I can see where they're coming from, of course.
Well there has to be a very clear decision, either the ensures that care is needed, funded by insurance, or we allow the poor die when their assets run out, and decide that we are okay with that as a society. Which route we take is a moral judgement.
Oh don't be so silly. Even the dementia tax proposed covering the cost of care when someone had £100,000 or less.
These posts of yours are the most fiscally conservative I've seen in a long time.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
I think AM has had that experience very recently, and has been quite fulsome in his praise of the care received. Care that would have happened to a navvie the same as a high flying lawyer. When it comes to health we become equal very quickly.
If true, then I'm delighted that "someone else" (me) paid for it.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
No - not aimed at you at all Mr Chameleon.
Okay, sorry about that then! I'm just painfully aware that Bobajob and myself overlap on a number of areas.
Like ScottP's hilarious response to the Monty Hall problem, IOS' 'ground game', Mr Eagles' red shoes, I'm guessing now my slathering over the prospects of Mrs May in this election, and many other humourous events, Bobajob is known for having had several dozen* accounts in the past year or so.
That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.
Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.
The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.
The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.
It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.
Why should the public be forced to take out care insurance? Why can't they take their chances if they so wish, subject to having a safety net? The evidence suggests that in practice that's what the public want to do. Insurers have seen no appetite for care insurance even among the wealthy.
The public has looked at the problem in the election campaign and has very firmly formed the view that its preferred solution is not to need long term care. I can see where they're coming from, of course.
Well there has to be a very clear decision, either the ensures that care is needed, funded by insurance, or we allow the poor die when their assets run out, and decide that we are okay with that as a society. Which route we take is a moral judgement.
Oh don't be so silly. Even the dementia tax proposed covering the cost of care when someone had £100,000 or less.
So when a person is down to their last 100k, who is paying for their care then? Oh yes, it is society as a whole. I thought that you were against that?
What gave you that idea? I'm against subsidising the wealthy.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
That's what happens when you have a system where money goes in, and money goes out without anyone really knowing what they get for their money. To keep the system running smoothly without too much anger people need to be satisfied, and feel like they are getting a fair deal. Currently from a student perspective, after you graduate you have a massive pile of debt and pay taxes at a higher rate than everyone else in the workforce, while pissing away a large proportion of your money on rent (which are being pushed ever higher by those that benefited from the explosion in house prices) and generally miserable wage growth. The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.
I have said it in here many times - a system in which most people think they do not own a fair stake is a system that cannot be sustained. It is in the self-interests of the wealthy and of cash-rich corporations to do their bit to ensure that people feel they have a shot, that things are not completely stacked against them. Putting money that you can never hope to spend offshore instead of actively agreeing to its redistribution is ultimately an act of self harm - if not for you then for your kids or their kids. At some stage, people will rise up and do something about it and you will have no say and no control. Much better to work with governments now than to leave it to the time when Jeremy and John control the levers of power.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Suggest you go back and re-read what HS2 is doing and why.
After nearly 8 years, remind me what the better alternative is to increase the track capacity on the WCML, ECML and MML?
oh, and the billions of £ of contracts for Phase 1 are signed, sealed and being delivered.
Cancel them, get nothing, but waste billions?
Save billions not yet spent on a vanity project.
Is Crossrail a vanity project?
Or are schemes to improve transport in northern cities the only vanity projects?
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
No - not aimed at you at all Mr Chameleon.
Okay, sorry about that then! I'm just painfully aware that Bobajob and myself overlap on a number of areas.
Like ScottP's hilarious response to the Monty Hall problem, IOS' 'ground game', Mr Eagles' red shoes, I'm guessing now my slathering over the prospects of Mrs May in this election, and many other humourous events, Bobajob is known for having had several dozen* accounts in the past year or so.
*I am of course exaggerating, but not much.
Haha, yeah he does seem to have had a decent few over time.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.
I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:
1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.
2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.
Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.
Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?
The Tories got the most seats, and the electorate decided they were just about good enough to carry on rather than having Corbyn's lot in. The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.
We already have a dementia tax.
We already had tuition fees in 2015, and the concessions the LDs got for trebling them made the burden on most students no worse - and better for poor students. It didn't matter. The headline is the story, the detail rarely saves you.
Just out of interest, what concessions are these? Everyone has seen their fees triple, the maintenance grants were completely abolished, and very few will ever get out of paying 9% more on everything over £20k than everyone else.
I think the threshold was increased from £18k and the write-off date brought forward a bit. Bizarrely, the trebling of fees didn't actually save any government money I think, according to OBR estimations (or some authoritative estimations). I'm not sure if that was only true when the repayment threshold was index-linked.
me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
Ummm, both Corbyn and McDonnel this morning on live TV said they want to walk away from the single market
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
The reason the Tories couldn't effectively attack Corbynomics is that it's just reheated Brexonomics.
When you tour the country in a bus with "£350m for the NHS" on the side, you can't convince people the other guys fantasy numbers don't add up
And they follow the same playbook. People will vote for free stuff. The SNP do it too, but at least they have a funding stream for it courtesy of Barnett (as long as they don't actually separate)
The SNP accused Scottish Labour of wanting to do away with Barnett during the election, not long before Saint Nic's dubious accusations against Dugdale.
me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
Ummm, both Corbyn and McDonnel this morning on live TV said they want to walk away from the single market
True, and disappointing. I can only hope it doesn't last.
Worst case, they know that the Tories will carry 100% of the can for the outcome of Brexit and Labour accordingly is cynically encouraging them to pursue the most damaging approach
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Only because I haven't got angry enough.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
No, we are ecstatic - absolutely ecstatic - that the Tories did not win. You may wish to see people like me as hypocrites and chancers, but me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
That's the first time I've seen you make that argument.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Anyone promising me an Aston Martin has my vote. Way better than an owl.
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Has the PM actually signed on the dotted line?
Yes
Billions of £ of contracts are signed
Diggers are digging
Planners are planning
...
In fact Phase 2a is currently having vast sums spent on the design.
Surprised I haven't heard yet that Squaggy and Boggy and whatever their names are are superglued to Oaks in the Chilterns. That'll add another billion or two.
I certainly think that if he continues his obviously personal vendetta much longer he may paradoxically result in more people coming around to that view.
Whatever one thinks about the press as a whole, most operate by reflecting their readership. The criticism of papers like the Mail too often is misplaced in the sense that it accuses them of influencing their readership, when actually the criticism should be that too often they fail to challenge their readership's prejudices.
Osborne clearly couldn't care less about his readership (why should he, it's a freesheet) and is just using it as a personal platform to conduct a personal vendetta. I suspect that he may ironically be shoring up May's position as a result. He certainly won't have many bridges left to the Tory membership.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Anyone promising me an Aston Martin has my vote. Way better than an owl.
An owl to drive your Aston Martin and a monkey butler, if you vote for the HaroldO party.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Anyone promising me an Aston Martin has my vote. Way better than an owl.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too subtle, I guess. Presumably, if you or a loved one were unfortunate enough to acquire a medical condition whose treatment costs far exceeded all the tax you had paid less the value of the public services you had already availed yourself of, then you would be quite happy for "someone else" to pay for it.
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Ysnip
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Only because I haven't got angry enough.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
... Despite all this, Corbyn still lost the election.
Actually May lost the election. Corbyn didn't become Prime Minister. Important difference.
Bar Ruth Davidson, DUP & SF and the bookies, I'm struggling to think of any winners!
Jeremy Corbyn was definitely a winner from this election. He went in written off by everybody including me. The only question was how big the bloodbath was going to be. He increased his seat count by ignoring people like me, and by running a competent and personable campaign, and, interestingly, by being a master of spin. His success was therefore personal to him.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
I think that Philip Green and similar have done huge damage to capitalism. They take all the benefits of private enterprise, while offloading the risks onto employees and taxpayers.
I disagree. Those who made the roles that permit such behaviour are to blame. In a population of 70 million, there will always be enough Philip Greens out there to do damage. We can't get rid of such people, so the damage must be made impossible.
The reason the Tories couldn't effectively attack Corbynomics is that it's just reheated Brexonomics.
When you tour the country in a bus with "£350m for the NHS" on the side, you can't convince people the other guys fantasy numbers don't add up
And they follow the same playbook. People will vote for free stuff. The SNP do it too, but at least they have a funding stream for it courtesy of Barnett (as long as they don't actually separate)
+1. As Alistair (AIR) said earlier, the Brexiteers are just miffed that other types of crazy populism are also available.
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Has the PM actually signed on the dotted line?
Yes
Billions of £ of contracts are signed
Diggers are digging
Planners are planning
...
In fact Phase 2a is currently having vast sums spent on the design.
Surprised I haven't heard yet that Squaggy and Boggy and whatever their names are are superglued to Oaks in the Chilterns. That'll add another billion or two.
Maybe we should bow to the undemocratic protesters and let them decide public policy?
Could extend this to foreign policy that may add billions to our security budget?
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
I think that Philip Green and similar have done huge damage to capitalism. They take all the benefits of private enterprise, while offloading the risks onto employees and taxpayers.
That's absolutely right, and is why one of the Trump proposals - to remove the tax deductability of interest - is absolutely right. We want to reduce fragility. And discouraging people from leveraging up to make a quick buck is a key component of that.
The reason the Tories couldn't effectively attack Corbynomics is that it's just reheated Brexonomics.
When you tour the country in a bus with "£350m for the NHS" on the side, you can't convince people the other guys fantasy numbers don't add up
And they follow the same playbook. People will vote for free stuff. The SNP do it too, but at least they have a funding stream for it courtesy of Barnett (as long as they don't actually separate)
+1. As Alistair (AIR) said earlier, the Brexiteers are just miffed that other types of crazy populism are also available.
Actually I'm quite happy that Corbyn is doing well.
If the Tories sabotage Brexit it's very, very possible I'll vote for Corbyn next time.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
No, we are ecstatic - absolutely ecstatic - that the Tories did not win. You may wish to see people like me as hypocrites and chancers, but me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
That's the first time I've seen you make that argument.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
In that case she can at least console herself with the thought that other excuses for having to compromise have now appeared.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
No, he should design Labour's land value (wealth) tax, since he clearly appreciates a signifcant part of its logic.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
snip
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
snip
snip
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Anyone promising me an Aston Martin has my vote. Way better than an owl.
An owl to drive your Aston Martin and a monkey butler, if you vote for the HaroldO party.
Unless you engrave on an ill-advised stone monolith a promise to give my monkey butler a top hat and spinning bow tie, you'll still have to put me down as a maybe.
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
No, we are ecstatic - absolutely ecstatic - that the Tories did not win. You may wish to see people like me as hypocrites and chancers, but me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
That's the first time I've seen you make that argument.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
That was my best guess for why she went for the election (the big majority was actually about securing her from the Tory Right and to let her compromise during the negotiations)
The position we're in now with a much weaker PM and government makes me think the chances of a no deal Brexit crash-out are probably a lot greater than they would've been with a big Con majority.
You could easily see Parliament becoming a total shambles and breaking down in to factions in Spring 2019 with nothing getting passed... And then, time runs out and we're out!
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
No, we are ecstatic - absolutely ecstatic - that the Tories did not win. You may wish to see people like me as hypocrites and chancers, but me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
That's the first time I've seen you make that argument.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
It's not clear that Theresa May ever had an intention. She has spent the year since the referendum in time-wasting and displacement activity, including most catastrophically holding this election, rather than defining the agenda, building alliances and preparing the groundwork. As Southam says, she was unnecessarily confrontational to those whose goodwill we depend on. She hugely damaged the national interest.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
I think that Philip Green and similar have done huge damage to capitalism. They take all the benefits of private enterprise, while offloading the risks onto employees and taxpayers.
That's absolutely right, and is why one of the Trump proposals - to remove the tax deductability of interest - is absolutely right. We want to reduce fragility. And discouraging people from leveraging up to make a quick buck is a key component of that.
Spot on. Except that Trump will struggle to get the GOP to support it.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
No, current Labour policy is to set up a National Care Service funded by wealth and business taxation.
I have no problem with denying inheritance. We have a 40% estate tax at present. The problem is that it's not applied equally. The Duke of Westminster, for example, avoided £4 billion of IHT. We should close the gift and trust loopholes and collect estate taxes from everyone. Then we might find we wouldn't need to apply random catastrophic levies on families already destroyed by grotesque degenerative diseases in order to pay for care they were unfortunate enough to need. An ugly spectacle in a first world country.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Here's the problem: he's massively unpopular.
What was it? Only 2% of the electorate liked him?
He's a clever guy, talented, and very capable. But, he's also got a reputation as someone who revels in deception and manipulation that he hasn't done much to shake.
If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
There are also a lot of big tech companies that do offshore a hell of a lot of cash. Apple and Alphabet spring to mind.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Anyone promising me an Aston Martin has my vote. Way better than an owl.
An owl to drive your Aston Martin and a monkey butler, if you vote for the HaroldO party.
Who the hell would get an Aston Martin and let someone else drive it? No sale.
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Here's the problem: he's massively unpopular.
What was it? Only 2% of the electorate liked him?
He's a clever guy, talented, and very capable. But, he's also got a reputation as someone who revels in deception and manipulation that he hasn't done much to shake.
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
They are pitching no single market, and it is already pissing off Labour MPs (and causing some angst on Twitter)
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
If it's a choice between a soft Brexit and letting Corbyn in, I'd hope that all but the maddest Tories manage to hold their tongues...
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
The flipside is the headbangers fear no Brexit if May is deposed.
IDS was the first (and only) out of the gates warning about toppling her
What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.
The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.
Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?
Suggest you go back and re-read what HS2 is doing and why.
After nearly 8 years, remind me what the better alternative is to increase the track capacity on the WCML, ECML and MML?
oh, and the billions of £ of contracts for Phase 1 are signed, sealed and being delivered.
Cancel them, get nothing, but waste billions?
Save billions not yet spent on a vanity project.
Is Crossrail a vanity project?
Or are schemes to improve transport in northern cities the only vanity projects?
To be fair, about a quarter of Crossrail's budget came from a controversial London business tax (controversial because it was not levied only locally to the line):
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
It's madness. Very generous tax breaks, very high spending plans, huge borrowing, some very anti-business policies, and the barmy idea that all of this can be sorted out by taxing the top 5% and most mobile part of the population. Does anybody here think this could actually work?
Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.
I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.
Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.
Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.
No, we are ecstatic - absolutely ecstatic - that the Tories did not win. You may wish to see people like me as hypocrites and chancers, but me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
That's the first time I've seen you make that argument.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
In that case she can at least console herself with the thought that other excuses for having to compromise have now appeared.
But only if it's her personal compromise with someone else on her terms, with tools she entirely controls.
Not the compromise of coalition building, which I expect her to be awful at.
It might be she is there to take the fall for the initial Brexit bill of c.£30bn and skewed rights for EU nationals in the UK under ECJ oversight.
Then, she'll be junked and some other Tory will take the credit for the best parts of the new deal.
Comments
Foreign Secretary pledges his own loyalty to the beleaguered PM telling ministers to 'get a grip'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3777263/boris-johnson-calls-on-mutinous-fellow-tory-mps-to-stop-plotting-to-dump-theresa-may/
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/873998976965632001
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/873996915624562688
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
I made a comment just before the election on the "May needs a willie" thread, that identified Green as a good Deputy PM like figure.
I would go further now and say maybe Green is the current PM's favoured successor.
When you tour the country in a bus with "£350m for the NHS" on the side, you can't convince people the other guys fantasy numbers don't add up
And they follow the same playbook. People will vote for free stuff. The SNP do it too, but at least they have a funding stream for it courtesy of Barnett (as long as they don't actually separate)
I approve.
*I am of course exaggerating, but not much.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Or are schemes to improve transport in northern cities the only vanity projects?
Assuming that happens, the government will be making money from the loan book.
I spoke to my Dad earlier. Very concerned about Nicola's health. She didn't feature on the STV news at all today
Worst case, they know that the Tories will carry 100% of the can for the outcome of Brexit and Labour accordingly is cynically encouraging them to pursue the most damaging approach
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
But, FWIW, I don't think that was ever Theresa May's intention. She wanted a big majority to make compromises that would have been unpopular with many of her backbenchers, and she probably wanted to keep it a secret right up until the point it happened.
OK...
Whatever one thinks about the press as a whole, most operate by reflecting their readership. The criticism of papers like the Mail too often is misplaced in the sense that it accuses them of influencing their readership, when actually the criticism should be that too often they fail to challenge their readership's prejudices.
Osborne clearly couldn't care less about his readership (why should he, it's a freesheet) and is just using it as a personal platform to conduct a personal vendetta. I suspect that he may ironically be shoring up May's position as a result. He certainly won't have many bridges left to the Tory membership.
Could extend this to foreign policy that may add billions to our security budget?
If the Tories sabotage Brexit it's very, very possible I'll vote for Corbyn next time.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/874009686428844032
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
Brexit begat Corbyn.
You won. Suck it up!
No-one knows.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
For the manifold, not the fumes.
The position we're in now with a much weaker PM and government makes me think the chances of a no deal Brexit crash-out are probably a lot greater than they would've been with a big Con majority.
You could easily see Parliament becoming a total shambles and breaking down in to factions in Spring 2019 with nothing getting passed... And then, time runs out and we're out!
Brexit ran an anti-establishment campaign and won
Corbyn ran the same campaign, so he must have won too, right?
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
I have no problem with denying inheritance. We have a 40% estate tax at present. The problem is that it's not applied equally. The Duke of Westminster, for example, avoided £4 billion of IHT. We should close the gift and trust loopholes and collect estate taxes from everyone. Then we might find we wouldn't need to apply random catastrophic levies on families already destroyed by grotesque degenerative diseases in order to pay for care they were unfortunate enough to need. An ugly spectacle in a first world country.
What was it? Only 2% of the electorate liked him?
He's a clever guy, talented, and very capable. But, he's also got a reputation as someone who revels in deception and manipulation that he hasn't done much to shake.
IDS was the first (and only) out of the gates warning about toppling her
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/promoting-london/paying-crossrail-business-rate-supplement
This does not mean that the critics of HS2 are in any way right.
Not the compromise of coalition building, which I expect her to be awful at.
It might be she is there to take the fall for the initial Brexit bill of c.£30bn and skewed rights for EU nationals in the UK under ECJ oversight.
Then, she'll be junked and some other Tory will take the credit for the best parts of the new deal.