Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
The Will Tanner piece in the Guardian is interesting and illustrates an interesting paradox at the heart of modern Conservative thinking.
On the one hand, there's a lot of talk about aspiration and opportunity and economic measures aimed at helping the lower paid and lower earners and these are straight out of the Coalition playbook - cutting employer NI and raising stamp duty threshold to get more people owning and fewer renting.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
May tried to reach out to those who had never voted Conservative and was in some respects successful but the price for that support (or the way of paying for the inducements for that support) was to put forward ideas which frightened off some of the core vote.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
Indeed and it's much easier to negotiate from a position of strength rather than weakness. If Kim has missiles which can strike the CONUS he will be in a stronger position. The question then becomes if Trump is going to follow the 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine and attack any nation which develops such a ballistic capability.
It's too late to worry about Russia and China but if NK conclusively demonstrates it could strike San Francisco or LA with a nuclear missile it would be analogous to the Russians being able to do the same from Cuba in 1962 - no American administration would tolerate that threat.
All this speculation about Rudd as a future Conservative leader misses the point: a 'remainer,' as she is, is unacceptable to the Conservative Party, just as the centre-left Heseltine was twenty five years ago. With the UK oleaving the EU, there can only be a Brexiteer in charge. It will probably be Johnson or Davis, with Gove an outsider. Demands made to 'skip a generation' were made by Remainers with a view to getting Rudd in. It won't work.
All this speculation about Rudd as a future Conservative leader misses the point: a 'remainer,' as she is, is unacceptable to the Conservative Party, just as the centre-left Heseltine was twenty five years ago. With the UK oleaving the EU, there can only be a Brexiteer in charge. It will probably be Johnson or Davis, with Gove an outsider. Demands made to 'skip a generation' were made by Remainers with a view to getting Rudd in. It won't work.
Just out of interest - if you don't mind me asking - did you vote tory or ukip in 2015?
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
What would happen?
Trump would activate his very smart, very secret plan to defeat North Korea
Rudd has three big problems: the third is that she comes across as totally voter unfriendly, as as strident and "shoutey" Her name also sounds like a traffic light changing colour.
All this speculation about Rudd as a future Conservative leader misses the point: a 'remainer,' as she is, is unacceptable to the Conservative Party, just as the centre-left Heseltine was twenty five years ago. With the UK oleaving the EU, there can only be a Brexiteer in charge. It will probably be Johnson or Davis, with Gove an outsider. Demands made to 'skip a generation' were made by Remainers with a view to getting Rudd in. It won't work.
Agreed. The only way for Rudd or Hammond is a coronation and the members would not stand for another of those events as the Remain dominated MPs are not trusted by the members.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
Assuming May jumps or is pushed, who do the CERTAINLY NOT Rudd commentators think should AND will be the next Tory party leader? The two questions don't necessarily have the same answer.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
To be paid when? If at death that would create a mess with IHT. Currently CGT is excluded at death.
It would also act as a disincentive on the elderly to downsize, something which helps the property market.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
All this speculation about Rudd as a future Conservative leader misses the point: a 'remainer,' as she is, is unacceptable to the Conservative Party, just as the centre-left Heseltine was twenty five years ago. With the UK oleaving the EU, there can only be a Brexiteer in charge. It will probably be Johnson or Davis, with Gove an outsider. Demands made to 'skip a generation' were made by Remainers with a view to getting Rudd in. It won't work.
Agreed. The only way for Rudd or Hammond is a coronation and the members would not stand for another of those events as the Remain dominated MPs are not trusted by the members.
Just how much power do the grass roots members have in the Tory party? The bulk of the funds come from donors, so they aren't necessary from a financial point of view. The doorstep campaigning appears to be run centrally. They are gate keepers to safe seats, but they have to chose from a centrally selected lists. So while it would be bad PR to upset them, the leadership could afford to ignore their wishes for a fair while without any big problem?
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
What would happen?
I'm guessing a strike on all known missile sites?
What of the unknown missile sites? Seoul has 10 million inhabitants and is almost on the border with North Korea -- a reasonably powerful trebuchet would cause mass casualties.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
To be paid when? If at death that would create a mess with IHT. Currently CGT is excluded at death.
It would also act as a disincentive on the elderly to downsize, something which helps the property market.
When it is no longer reinvested in a PPR (i.e. on death or downsizing)
It wouldn't act as a disincentive to downsizing - the liability would exist in any event, so people should be indifferent from that perspective as to whether they downsize or whether they remain invested until death.
From an IHT perspective, CGT would be a liability on the estate and therefore would reduce the taxable amount prior to the IHT calculation being made.
Fundamentally, there is an incentive to over invest in property rather than productive assets and this needs to be addressed.
Most constructive and balanced major power in world affairs? How can you possibly reconcile that with them propping up the most heinous regime in the world today, as well as their unilateral territory grabs in the South China Sea?
I think that dealing with North Korea is genuinely tricky, even for China - if the Korean regime were in, say, Ireland, with nukes and missiles and a potential flood of refugees if the economy collapsed, we'd be juggling pressure and tactical assistance too.
As for the South China Sea, it's not obvious that any of the border claims are really copper-bottomed, and it's not really unusual big power behaviour that they're trying to elbow their way into the best position.
Compared with Trump and Putin, they do seem to me the most level-headed. Which of the three do you feel most confident about causing least global unrest?
Assuming May jumps or is pushed, who do the CERTAINLY NOT Rudd commentators think should AND will be the next Tory party leader? The two questions don't necessarily have the same answer.
Should: Ken Clarke Will: (Pessimistically) Priti Patel
Most constructive and balanced major power in world affairs? How can you possibly reconcile that with them propping up the most heinous regime in the world today, as well as their unilateral territory grabs in the South China Sea?
I think that dealing with North Korea is genuinely tricky, even for China - if the Korean regime were in, say, Ireland, with nukes and missiles and a potential flood of refugees if the economy collapsed, we'd be juggling pressure and tactical assistance too As for the South China Sea, it's not obvious that any of the border claims are really copper-bottomed, and it's not really unusual big power behaviour that they're trying to elbow their way into the best position.
Compared with Trump and Putin, they do seem to me the most level-headed. Which of the three do you feel most confident about causing least global unrest?
Xiajing Tibet Spratleys Senkaku Taiwan Aksai Chin Arunachal Pradesh
Notice a pattern? I don't see any other "big powers" (except possibly Russia) engaged in territorial aggrandizement in the way China is.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
To be paid when? If at death that would create a mess with IHT. Currently CGT is excluded at death. It would also act as a disincentive on the elderly to downsize, something which helps the property market.
When it is no longer reinvested in a PPR (i.e. on death or downsizing) It wouldn't act as a disincentive to downsizing - the liability would exist in any event, so people should be indifferent from that perspective as to whether they downsize or whether they remain invested until death. From an IHT perspective, CGT would be a liability on the estate and therefore would reduce the taxable amount prior to the IHT calculation being made. Fundamentally, there is an incentive to over invest in property rather than productive assets and this needs to be addressed.
Charles, thanks for that full explanation. It is not a policy i would advocate. Fixing the housing problem needs more housing supply and less demand (low immigration).
The danger for Rudd is the Home Office's line on encryption risks making her look a fool.
Encryption is a fourth tier issue. Less than 1% of the population understand it and less than 0.5% care about it.
Encryption? Rudd versus every tech company on the planet, all the banks, not to mention main leadership rival David Davis. Even Guido would be all over it.
The danger for Rudd is the Home Office's line on encryption risks making her look a fool.
Encryption is a fourth tier issue. Less than 1% of the population understand it and less than 0.5% care about it.
Encryption? Rudd versus every tech company on the planet, all the banks, not to mention main leadership rival David Davis. Even Guido would be all over it.
Rudd does seem to lack the ability to challenge nonsense that her civil servants feed her. Similar to Hammond in that respect. Must make them great ministers to have in place in the eyes of sir humphreys.
The danger for Rudd is the Home Office's line on encryption risks making her look a fool.
Encryption is a fourth tier issue. Less than 1% of the population understand it and less than 0.5% care about it.
Encryption? Rudd versus every tech company on the planet, all the banks, not to mention main leadership rival David Davis. Even Guido would be all over it.
It's quite incredible. They're trying to make maths illegal.
Most constructive and balanced major power in world affairs? How can you possibly reconcile that with them propping up the most heinous regime in the world today, as well as their unilateral territory grabs in the South China Sea?
I think that dealing with North Korea is genuinely tricky, even for China - if the Korean regime were in, say, Ireland, with nukes and missiles and a potential flood of refugees if the economy collapsed, we'd be juggling pressure and tactical assistance too As for the South China Sea, it's not obvious that any of the border claims are really copper-bottomed, and it's not really unusual big power behaviour that they're trying to elbow their way into the best position. Compared with Trump and Putin, they do seem to me the most level-headed. Which of the three do you feel most confident about causing least global unrest?
Xiajing Tibet Spratleys Senkaku Taiwan Aksai Chin Arunachal Pradesh Notice a pattern? I don't see any other "big powers" (except possibly Russia) engaged in territorial aggrandizement in the way China is.
Very true and as they edge closer to USA in economic power so the world becomes a more dangerous place. I can though hope that the debt wall that Japan hit, is replicated for China which stops their expansion.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
To be paid when? If at death that would create a mess with IHT. Currently CGT is excluded at death. It would also act as a disincentive on the elderly to downsize, something which helps the property market.
When it is no longer reinvested in a PPR (i.e. on death or downsizing) It wouldn't act as a disincentive to downsizing - the liability would exist in any event, so people should be indifferent from that perspective as to whether they downsize or whether they remain invested until death. From an IHT perspective, CGT would be a liability on the estate and therefore would reduce the taxable amount prior to the IHT calculation being made. Fundamentally, there is an incentive to over invest in property rather than productive assets and this needs to be addressed.
Charles, thanks for that full explanation. It is not a policy i would advocate. Fixing the housing problem needs more housing supply and less demand (low immigration).
This isn't about fixing the housing problem - I agree that needs more supply and less demand (principally this is caused by the increase in smaller family units via divorce, later partnering, etc) rather than by immigration.
It's about fixing distortions in the allocation of capital because of the favourable tax treatment of one asset class.
Most constructive and balanced major power in world affairs? How can you possibly reconcile that with them propping up the most heinous regime in the world today, as well as their unilateral territory grabs in the South China Sea?
I think that dealing with North Korea is genuinely tricky, even for China - if the Korean regime were in, say, Ireland, with nukes and missiles and a potential flood of refugees if the economy collapsed, we'd be juggling pressure and tactical assistance too.
As for the South China Sea, it's not obvious that any of the border claims are really copper-bottomed, and it's not really unusual big power behaviour that they're trying to elbow their way into the best position.
Compared with Trump and Putin, they do seem to me the most level-headed. Which of the three do you feel most confident about causing least global unrest?
Trump, because the US political system constrains him.
China has territorial claims against most neighbouring powers, who have good reason, historically, to fear China. I'd accept that the Chinese leaders seem to level-headed, and maybe will never try to enforce these claims. But, things can also get out of control.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
Ok, now we can all agree that Jennings' test career is over. And here comes Malan. That first innings lead is pretty important and this batting line up really won't do.
I was involved in the drafting of this article, focusing on the Brexit negotiations rather than on a new party, but developing some of the same points in more detail:
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
Ok, now we can all agree that Jennings' test career is over. And here comes Malan. That first innings lead is pretty important and this batting line up really won't do.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
We could merge the Macron and Trump phenomena with Lord Sugar leading a populist centrist movement complete with slogans like 'Lock them up' aimed at the lying Brexiteers.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Sadiq Khan is the obvious candidate. He has an independent power base, has already developed cross-party support and has no particular likelihood of prospering further in a Corbynite Labour party. But he appears stil to be working on his chances within Labour.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Sadiq Khan is the obvious candidate. He has an independent power base, has already developed cross-party support and has no particular likelihood of prospering further in a Corbynite Labour party. But he appears stil to be working on his chances within Labour.
Not exactly Roy Jenkins is he? And the challenge for such a party would be to appeal beyond London. I am not sure he has that kind of reach. But it would be a start.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
But just maybe her majority? She has enough awkward squads without creating new ones.
Talking of pygmies compared to giants, for the next Test can we please have Stoneman opening, Moeen or Bairstow at 5 and the other at 7, and Adil Rashid at 8?
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
But just maybe her majority? She has enough awkward squads without creating new ones.
She can sink slowly and inevitably or she can boldly seek to regain initiative. It's not in her nature but she should take the risky route.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Former Rothschild's banker? Step forward Ollie Letwin...
Talking of pygmies compared to giants, for the next Test can we please have Stoneman opening, Moeen or Bairstow at 5 and the other at 7, and Adil Rashid at 8?
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
When Joe Root has a strike rate in the 30s you know it is really not easy out there. But England have too many batsmen who don't seem to have any kind of plan.
I think they need another 100 and they should get that. SA can bowl but they struggle with the bat.
Talking of pygmies compared to giants, for the next Test can we please have Stoneman opening, Moeen or Bairstow at 5 and the other at 7, and Adil Rashid at 8?
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
When Joe Root has a strike rate in the 30s you know it is really not easy out there. But England have too many batsmen who don't seem to have any kind of plan.
I think they need another 100 and they should get that. SA can bowl but they struggle with the bat.
Oh lord here comes Morkel.
I don't mind them failing when it's tough. That's allowed. The problem is that Malan and Jennings haven't scored runs anywhere at any time. They are holding places that could be filled by Moeen (averages 48 at 5 in the last year) and Stoneman (761 at 58 this year in first class cricket).
Playing them against the Windies would be silly. It would be the equivalent if Theresa May leading the Conservatives into the next election.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
But just maybe her majority? She has enough awkward squads without creating new ones.
She can sink slowly and inevitably or she can boldly seek to regain initiative. It's not in her nature but she should take the risky route.
She is far too weak and doesn't have enough natural supporters who will back her. She can survive as a compromise but only if she doesn't rock the boat.
Talking of pygmies compared to giants, for the next Test can we please have Stoneman opening, Moeen or Bairstow at 5 and the other at 7, and Adil Rashid at 8?
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
When Joe Root has a strike rate in the 30s you know it is really not easy out there. But England have too many batsmen who don't seem to have any kind of plan.
I think they need another 100 and they should get that. SA can bowl but they struggle with the bat.
Oh lord here comes Morkel.
I don't mind them failing when it's tough. That's allowed. The problem is that Malan and Jennings haven't scored runs anywhere at any time. They are holding places that could be filled by Moeen (averages 48 at 5 in the last year) and Stoneman (761 at 58 this year in first class cricket).
Playing them against the Windies would be silly. It would be the equivalent if Theresa May leading the Conservatives into the next election.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
But just maybe her majority? She has enough awkward squads without creating new ones.
She can sink slowly and inevitably or she can boldly seek to regain initiative. It's not in her nature but she should take the risky route.
She is far too weak and doesn't have enough natural supporters who will back her. She can survive as a compromise but only if she doesn't rock the boat.
She has one source of strength: her dangers are rivals of each other. If they're too weak to move against her now, they'll be no stronger if she hacks at their power bases. So long as their calculation is that the status quo is better than a challenge, they won't move. And promoted newbies are going to be happy and loyal.
Will it work? Maybe not. But no change = no chance for Mrs May. Time to roll the dice.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
Are his missiles accurate enough to land "just off the coast"?
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
Are his missiles accurate enough to land "just off the coast"?
That would be one hell of a risky play.
And who would believe that he didn't just miss? Either way there would be a massive reaction.
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
I think he would find that he couldn't get away with that.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Sadiq Khan is the obvious candidate. He has an independent power base, has already developed cross-party support and has no particular likelihood of prospering further in a Corbynite Labour party. But he appears stil to be working on his chances within Labour.
Two Tins Khan is the remainers' big hope? You really are desperate..
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
The Brexit Jihadists on the Tory benches are going to ensure JCICWBPM. And sooner rather than later at this rate.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's going to be a wild ride and I suspect, the emergence of a new centrist and pragmatist party.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Surely Logan's Run had a more efficient solution?
That's a film reference, right?!
Well a novel really but they did make rather a good film out of it.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Surely Logan's Run had a more efficient solution?
It did until Logan the Brexiteer stood up to the murdering socialist consensus,
On topic, the Conservatives need a leader who isn't going to want to make a good chunk of their potential voters put their foot through the TV screen. Leavers' obsession means that Amber Rudd fails this test.
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
But just maybe her majority? She has enough awkward squads without creating new ones.
She can sink slowly and inevitably or she can boldly seek to regain initiative. It's not in her nature but she should take the risky route.
She is far too weak and doesn't have enough natural supporters who will back her. She can survive as a compromise but only if she doesn't rock the boat.
She has one source of strength: her dangers are rivals of each other. If they're too weak to move against her now, they'll be no stronger if she hacks at their power bases. So long as their calculation is that the status quo is better than a challenge, they won't move. And promoted newbies are going to be happy and loyal.
Will it work? Maybe not. But no change = no chance for Mrs May. Time to roll the dice.
Being in number 10 gives her lots of options to instigate some political theatre when she gets back from holiday. Something she has form for.
Talking of pygmies compared to giants, for the next Test can we please have Stoneman opening, Moeen or Bairstow at 5 and the other at 7, and Adil Rashid at 8?
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
You are a person of uncommon common sense.
The simplest solution would be to move Bairstow, Stokes and Moeen one place up the order (their current hierarchy seems to work quite well), and then we just need to find a two and a three. Stoneman is probably worth a shot, though it's worth pointing out his 1st class average isn't exceptional, and it's not as though one or two promising top order batsmen haven't failed at test level recently.
Shame Hameed still can't buy a run this season... though he'll be back eventually.
Somewhat encouraging that the Chinese voted for sanctions on North Korea and then engaged in direct talks with them - surprisingly, China is the most constructive and balanced major power in foreign affairs these days, and I don't say that with any illusions about their political virtue.
- that would certainly appeal to some on the centre-left, including me, though how many votes it would swing I'm less sure.
I think it would swing lots of votes.
But, not in favour of the Conservatives.
If you had rollover relief for a principal private residence (i.e. any capital gain that is invested in a new PPR has tax deferred) it wouldn't be unreasonable.
That's very similar to the US system, I think.
Basically the same. The US have got property tax pretty much right, much as I hate writing a 5 figure cheque each year.
...all of his references were at least 30 years old. The image he mirrored back at his Australian audience was of the nation slumped in a cultural cringe, decades out of date. It was embarrassing, but more so for him than us. Johnson also conducted a verbal hypothetical, exploring what would have happened if Australia had joined the European Union.
It was a logically distorted attempt to reverse-engineer a political excuse for Brexit, made to the wrong audience.
Johnson's central message was deeply patronising: Australia had never joined the European common market and yet, even you people, Swiftian barbarians that you are, have managed to flourish economically. How humiliating that Britain was now seeking to do independently (of the EU) what Australia had accomplished years ago, all by its itty self.
It was bizarre, and made me wonder why we still revere and tolerate such post-colonial condescension.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
Stop spending it like a drunken sailor.
Well few organisations can't save a bit of cash if they look carefully, but equally you can't run a government on scotch mist. Somebody somewhere has to put their hands in their pockets if we want a functioning state.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
Stop spending it like a drunken sailor.
Well few organisations can't save a bit of cash if they look carefully, but equally you can't run a government on scotch mist. Somebody somewhere has to put their hands in their pockets if we want a functioning state.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Sadiq Khan is the obvious candidate. He has an independent power base, has already developed cross-party support and has no particular likelihood of prospering further in a Corbynite Labour party. But he appears stil to be working on his chances within Labour.
Not exactly Roy Jenkins is he? And the challenge for such a party would be to appeal beyond London. I am not sure he has that kind of reach. But it would be a start.
How about a new party led by Alistair Campbell and Anna Soubry?
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
Are his missiles accurate enough to land "just off the coast"?
That would be one hell of a risky play.
And who would believe that he didn't just miss? Either way there would be a massive reaction.
There was an interesting article in the Economist, about how a nuclear conflict with North Korea could develop.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
Stop spending it like a drunken sailor.
Well few organisations can't save a bit of cash if they look carefully, but equally you can't run a government on scotch mist. Somebody somewhere has to put their hands in their pockets if we want a functioning state.
It depends on your definition of "functioning".
Right now I see a bloated state.
Well we are in the middle of the range for expenditure compared to similar countries.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Agreed. Though it is not utterly impossible to imagine a situation where a centre coalition might achieve Macron levels of electoral success.
But who play's Macron?
I didnt say it would be easy to imagine....
When the best suggestion so far is Denis McShane......
Sadiq Khan is the obvious candidate. He has an independent power base, has already developed cross-party support and has no particular likelihood of prospering further in a Corbynite Labour party. But he appears stil to be working on his chances within Labour.
Not exactly Roy Jenkins is he? And the challenge for such a party would be to appeal beyond London. I am not sure he has that kind of reach. But it would be a start.
How about a new party led by Alistair Campbell and Anna Soubry?
That doesn't seem likely at present and the risk the next escalation will be one too many is a large one (I'm reminded of what happened 103 years ago this weekend (roughly) after one crisis or provocation too many).
World Service this morning had a slightly unnerving comment that Kim doesn't want to return to the negotiating table until he had proved that he can deliver a nuclear payload to the American mainland...
I could see him lobbing a missile close to the US coast, just to see what he could get away with.
Are his missiles accurate enough to land "just off the coast"?
That would be one hell of a risky play.
And who would believe that he didn't just miss? Either way there would be a massive reaction.
There was an interesting article in the Economist, about how a nuclear conflict with North Korea could develop.
Not entirely to the advantage of ordinary Koreans?
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
We have a problem in that there are already lots of disincentives for older people to "trade down", which discourages the efficient allocation of scarce resources.
This would worsen the problem.
Blackmail might work.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Theft.
Its the real magic money tree: People with assets.
Well if the people with incomes are already being squeezed, where else is the money to come from?
Stop spending it like a drunken sailor.
Well few organisations can't save a bit of cash if they look carefully, but equally you can't run a government on scotch mist. Somebody somewhere has to put their hands in their pockets if we want a functioning state.
It depends on your definition of "functioning".
Right now I see a bloated state.
Well we are in the middle of the range for expenditure compared to similar countries.
@ydoethur - At least Root didn't fail to convert a 50 to a 100 this time, eh?
Cunning of him.
I like this suggestion courtesy of cricinfo:
"If Ian Bell does make a successful comeback, perhaps he should be immortalised with his own End?..."
He never was popular. Something to do with not converting 50s into 100s
I thought after your own innuendo bingo effort this morning, you'd enjoy that ..?
I did. Sorry if my response was too obscure!
What we really need though is a Pietersen end at Nottingham or Southampton, so a parochial announcer can declare the bowler is coming from the Bellend's End...
Edit - and if anyone wants to see a really shocking conversion rate, Northants have had six batsman get to 25, 3 to 50, Not one has gone past 70. So somehow Gloucestershire are still in the match.
Hmm.... When I joined the SDP I came from the Tory wets and so did many others. People who recognised that monetary policies that were essential to control inflation had to be combined with social policies that protected the vulnerable rather than tax cuts.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
Why compare? Why not just strive for smaller and better?
You're the one throwing terms like "bloated" around. Perhaps you can explain where this bloat is and what you would do with any savings achieved.
Recidivist just provided a link showing that half of the countries on that list fund themselves perfectly well with less tax take than us. So there's your bloat.
And why would I "do" anything with it? I'd lower the level of state theft via 'taxation' and leave people with their own money.
Good luck with paying the EU £36 billion and up beyond our membership obligations to the EU. There was a documentary about the London fire brigade where a woman was trapped in a car after a road accident. They had to wait three hours for ambulance workers before they could cut her out.
No money for the ambulance service, but willing to give it away so their chums can continue lining their pockets. I would like to see them try to sell that.
...all of his references were at least 30 years old. The image he mirrored back at his Australian audience was of the nation slumped in a cultural cringe, decades out of date. It was embarrassing, but more so for him than us. Johnson also conducted a verbal hypothetical, exploring what would have happened if Australia had joined the European Union.
It was a logically distorted attempt to reverse-engineer a political excuse for Brexit, made to the wrong audience.
Johnson's central message was deeply patronising: Australia had never joined the European common market and yet, even you people, Swiftian barbarians that you are, have managed to flourish economically. How humiliating that Britain was now seeking to do independently (of the EU) what Australia had accomplished years ago, all by its itty self.
It was bizarre, and made me wonder why we still revere and tolerate such post-colonial condescension.
I think the number of Australians with a chip on their shoulder so large they are still whining about a political crisis 42 years ago is significantly less than a majority. There is no popular enthusiasm for a republic, mainly because there is no consensus whatsoever about other changes that would need to be made to Australia's system of government as a consequence.
...all of his references were at least 30 years old. The image he mirrored back at his Australian audience was of the nation slumped in a cultural cringe, decades out of date. It was embarrassing, but more so for him than us. Johnson also conducted a verbal hypothetical, exploring what would have happened if Australia had joined the European Union.
It was a logically distorted attempt to reverse-engineer a political excuse for Brexit, made to the wrong audience.
Johnson's central message was deeply patronising: Australia had never joined the European common market and yet, even you people, Swiftian barbarians that you are, have managed to flourish economically. How humiliating that Britain was now seeking to do independently (of the EU) what Australia had accomplished years ago, all by its itty self.
It was bizarre, and made me wonder why we still revere and tolerate such post-colonial condescension.
I think the number of Australians with a chip on their shoulder so large they are still whining about a political crisis 42 years ago is significantly less than a majority. There is no popular enthusiasm for a republic, mainly because there is no consensus whatsoever about other changes that would need to be made to Australia's system of government as a consequence.
You could have said the same about the number of Brits whining about Ted Heath's precise phraseology 44 years ago and the fact that there was no consensus whatsoever about other changes that would need to be made to our system of government as a consequence of leaving the EU... Still we are where we are.
Comments
On the one hand, there's a lot of talk about aspiration and opportunity and economic measures aimed at helping the lower paid and lower earners and these are straight out of the Coalition playbook - cutting employer NI and raising stamp duty threshold to get more people owning and fewer renting.
On the other hand, that has to be paid for by taxation for those already with wealth in terms of CGT to be introduced on all sales above a certain value so it's less about taxing income or even consumption but taxing asset wealth.
May tried to reach out to those who had never voted Conservative and was in some respects successful but the price for that support (or the way of paying for the inducements for that support) was to put forward ideas which frightened off some of the core vote.
It's too late to worry about Russia and China but if NK conclusively demonstrates it could strike San Francisco or LA with a nuclear missile it would be analogous to the Russians being able to do the same from Cuba in 1962 - no American administration would tolerate that threat.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/05/new-political-party-leave-voters-right
It would also act as a disincentive on the elderly to downsize, something which helps the property market.
It wouldn't act as a disincentive to downsizing - the liability would exist in any event, so people should be indifferent from that perspective as to whether they downsize or whether they remain invested until death.
From an IHT perspective, CGT would be a liability on the estate and therefore would reduce the taxable amount prior to the IHT calculation being made.
Fundamentally, there is an incentive to over invest in property rather than productive assets and this needs to be addressed.
As for the South China Sea, it's not obvious that any of the border claims are really copper-bottomed, and it's not really unusual big power behaviour that they're trying to elbow their way into the best position.
Compared with Trump and Putin, they do seem to me the most level-headed. Which of the three do you feel most confident about causing least global unrest?
Will: (Pessimistically) Priti Patel
Tibet
Spratleys
Senkaku
Taiwan
Aksai Chin
Arunachal Pradesh
Notice a pattern? I don't see any other "big powers" (except possibly Russia) engaged in territorial aggrandizement in the way China is.
It is not a policy i would advocate. Fixing the housing problem needs more housing supply and less demand (low immigration).
It's about fixing distortions in the allocation of capital because of the favourable tax treatment of one asset class.
China has territorial claims against most neighbouring powers, who have good reason, historically, to fear China. I'd accept that the Chinese leaders seem to level-headed, and maybe will never try to enforce these claims. But, things can also get out of control.
It didn't work of course and it casts a shadow over UK politics even now. Those who still favour remain have no major party that espouses their position. If they are to take the field they need to bring together both the Labour right and the successors of those Tory wets damaging both parties.
It is not too hard to imagine Ed Balls and George Osborne in the same party, it is frankly easier than the bedfellows in the current coalitions, but they have both stepped out and are both party men to the core. Who would lead such a new grouping and who would follow? I struggle to see the equivalents of Roy Jenkins (a true giant and brilliant Home Secretary), David Owen and Shirley Williams. The two I have named apart, I frankly struggle to see the equivalent of Bill Rogers.
Alastair Meeks apparently spoiled his ballot paper. I can see remainers doing that in frustration for some time yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-stevenson/chlorinated-chicken_b_17641650.html
Theresa May should be considering a big clear-out to make way for some fresh blood. Too many of the current batch are too shop-soiled. And it's not as if she'd be losing incredible quality.
This is just painful although hopefully it doesn't matter with the lead over 200.
I think they need another 100 and they should get that. SA can bowl but they struggle with the bat.
Oh lord here comes Morkel.
Playing them against the Windies would be silly. It would be the equivalent if Theresa May leading the Conservatives into the next election.
Will it work? Maybe not. But no change = no chance for Mrs May. Time to roll the dice.
This would worsen the problem.
That would be one hell of a risky play.
Padlock the triple lock;
For those with assets greater than X, in order to draw your state/private pension you have to buy/build/fund one additional housing unit, until the backlog of houses-we-didn't-build-over-the-last-40-years get built. Maybe set a target of 500k/year or something.
Nimbyism would evaporate.
Hold on to your hats folks, it's going to be a wild ride and I suspect, the emergence of a new centrist and pragmatist party.
The simplest solution would be to move Bairstow, Stokes and Moeen one place up the order (their current hierarchy seems to work quite well), and then we just need to find a two and a three.
Stoneman is probably worth a shot, though it's worth pointing out his 1st class average isn't exceptional, and it's not as though one or two promising top order batsmen haven't failed at test level recently.
Shame Hameed still can't buy a run this season... though he'll be back eventually.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-queens-interests-are-not-ours-three-reasons-why-the-republic-will-get-up-one-day-20170803-gxos68.html
...all of his references were at least 30 years old. The image he mirrored back at his Australian audience was of the nation slumped in a cultural cringe, decades out of date. It was embarrassing, but more so for him than us. Johnson also conducted a verbal hypothetical, exploring what would have happened if Australia had joined the European Union.
It was a logically distorted attempt to reverse-engineer a political excuse for Brexit, made to the wrong audience.
Johnson's central message was deeply patronising: Australia had never joined the European common market and yet, even you people, Swiftian barbarians that you are, have managed to flourish economically. How humiliating that Britain was now seeking to do independently (of the EU) what Australia had accomplished years ago, all by its itty self.
It was bizarre, and made me wonder why we still revere and tolerate such post-colonial condescension.
I like this suggestion courtesy of cricinfo:
"If Ian Bell does make a successful comeback, perhaps he should be immortalised with his own End?..."
Right now I see a bloated state.
Most of whom have LibDem MPs.
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
Why compare? Why not just strive for smaller and better?
What we really need though is a Pietersen end at Nottingham or Southampton, so a parochial announcer can declare the bowler is coming from the Bellend's End...
Edit - and if anyone wants to see a really shocking conversion rate, Northants have had six batsman get to 25, 3 to 50, Not one has gone past 70. So somehow Gloucestershire are still in the match.
And why would I "do" anything with it? I'd lower the level of state theft via 'taxation' and leave people with their own money.
No money for the ambulance service, but willing to give it away so their chums can continue lining their pockets. I would like to see them try to sell that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5Wj0olGcA