Mr. Eagles, the joy being an insomniac is that you can have chocolate for supper, safe in the knowledge you'll sleep badly with or without the caffeine.
On the bright side of insomnia - only eight more sleeps to Christmas!
5-4 Lib Dem Majority Sutton looks enormous to my eyes, it has been held by the yellow peril since 1990. Current split is 45 LD - 9 Tories. Remember people vote differently in locals and nationals..
I've been allowed £40, 'boosted' to 27-20.
It's all up presumably
Yep, but it was all up in 2014 too ! The Lib Dems have at least stabilised in SW London since then, and can afford to lose up to 18 councillors before the bet fails...
Oh, and of course they've used that imaginative phrase "Big thaw".
Big thaw leaves thousands with too much of the wrong sort of water, if you think about it. And what else would you expect, when the wrong sort of snow melts?
We saw Deontay Wilder get past Luis Ortiz, having been rocked in r.7 and then coming back to knock the Cuban out in r.10. Orthodoxy is that Wilder relied on his punching power, aggression and heart, rather than technique, to get past an ageing but better boxer.
Similarly, the orthodoxy is that we expect AJ to KO anyone who comes up in front of him, including Joseph Parker later this month, relying more on punching power than technique, where he is still learning the latter. But Parker can box, perhaps is more of a natural boxer, can also bang and, as AJ gets bigger and bigger, can use the ring to keep clear of those big shots (he also can take a shot). It is entirely possible that he outmanoeuvres AJ, gets behind his jab, and then finds the perfect shot or shots to stop AJ.
Now, this is unlikely for Parker to do, but not the current 7.2 against on BF unlikely and I have backed him at that price. (I have also backed the draw as Canelo/Golovkin reminded us that this is how fights can end.)
Jaguar Land Rover suspend production due to water supply problems from Severn Trent Water Authority
I was pleasantly surprised by the strong PMI for services today but the lost production over the last week is going to give something of a bump to the growth figures in Q1.
Off-topic but on thread. Have just had an email from YouGov that says it's a survey for all councillors. It's all about fast-food chains and coffee shops: Costa, Starbucks, Subway, KFC, McD, Greggs etc. So there might be some polling news coming up to back up the thread discussion.
I'm halfway through and already feel like a KFC. Must resist!
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
And our dreadful government is keeping all the details carefully hidden, just in case we do not like what they are planning for us.
Brexit was a decision made by a majority of the British people in a democratic referendum. The Conservative government at the time advocated Remain. The present one is merely implementing the referendum decision. Labour's position -if it can be called a position -is also for Brexit and Labour is led by a lifelong brexiteer.
I dont think we should read too much into the hammering that the Tories are likely to get in London-especially in a mid term situation. London is also fertile ground for Labour. Even Ed Miliband did well in London.
Labour will do a lap of honour the next day. But Labour is in a state of hubris. Nemesis comes later....................
5-4 Lib Dem Majority Sutton looks enormous to my eyes, it has been held by the yellow peril since 1990. Current split is 45 LD - 9 Tories. Remember people vote differently in locals and nationals..
I've been allowed £40, 'boosted' to 27-20.
It's all up presumably
Yep, but it was all up in 2014 too ! The Lib Dems have at least stabilised in SW London since then, and can afford to lose up to 18 councillors before the bet fails...
Hmm ... veggie sausage, cooked gently, almost simmered until a deep brown colour, sprinkled with paprika and served piping hot ... before being tipped softly into the nearest rubbish bin.
If it doesn't stick you ribs together and leave a greasy film around the sink, it's not worth cooking.
So far all of the so-called 'questions' have been absolutely dire, not asking anything but trying to make mostly silly points. It's not exactly an advert for parliamentary involvement in the negotiations.
Brexit was a decision made by a majority of the British people in a democratic referendum. The Conservative government at the time advocated Remain. The present one is merely implementing the referendum decision. Labour's position -if it can be called a position -is also for Brexit and Labour is led by a lifelong brexiteer.
I dont think we should read too much into the hammering that the Tories are likely to get in London-especially in a mid term situation. London is also fertile ground for Labour. Even Ed Miliband did well in London.
Labour will do a lap of honour the next day. But Labour is in a state of hubris. Nemesis comes later....................
Given Labour needs around 10 or more net gains to gain any Tory council in London beyond Barnet Corbyn may not end up doing quite the lap of honour expected
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. These typically require airlines to be majority owned and controlled by parties from their country of origin.
Such limits would be problematic for British carriers as they have large foreign shareholdings
So, in the case of British Airways, the issue is that it is part of IAG (together with Iberia), and it has a large international shareholding. I would be staggered if even a third of IAG's shareholder base was in the UK.
Virgin Atlantic is 51% controlled by Virgin Group, and 49% by Delta Airlines. In theory, this should be less problematic, as Virgin Group is British. However, if they dig into the beneficial ownership of Virgin Group, they might conclude it is controlled from various Caribbean tax havens.
" British equities are the worst rated asset class globally amongst big investors, languishing at the bottom of a list of 22 different classes of global assets. A survey of 163 fund managers by Bank of America, reported by the FT, showed UK company shares to be the least popular investment option and most likely to be backed to fall in price. "
In my experience, it is very difficult to find a decent cooked meal in large swathes of the country, unless you want to go very up-market.
We lack the basic, grandma-cooking option: cheap but excellent. Most pubs just offer a range of fried bleugh.
Do Miller and Carter steaks pass the Gardenwalker test ?
Never heard of them. Steak is so expensive, I’d you want it done well. For a very cheap option, I’m a fan of Leon. Not sure how far North they go, but I know there’s one at Birmingham New Street.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
" British equities are the worst rated asset class globally amongst big investors, languishing at the bottom of a list of 22 different classes of global assets. A survey of 163 fund managers by Bank of America, reported by the FT, showed UK company shares to be the least popular investment option and most likely to be backed to fall in price. "
I fear in Corbyistan a microwave curry and a can of fizzy pop will be the new fine dining option...of course only one choice of curry, “curry” flavoured...if you are really pushing the boat out, dessert will be a trip to the state owned ice cream shop.
Having a curry will be banned under Corbyn.
A white English person having a curry is a form of cultural appropriation by the imperial nation and her people.
Bangers and mash for you.
Veggie bangers of course.....
Linda Macs veggie sausages are great, sliced down the middle, some fried onions, a good dollop of English mustard, a fried egg ontop and a splash of Encona's hot pepper sauce on some lovely soft homemade unbuttered bread/bap...Washed down with a mug of tea....A really scrummy, lovely sandwich....
She may have broken up the world's greatest group, but she knows how to make a good sausage!
I think he may be talking about the US and chain migration.
If he is, he's talking bollocks. US citizens can only sponsor parents, spouses, children and siblings, and there are long waiting lists for siblings and adult children.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
I fear in Corbyistan a microwave curry and a can of fizzy pop will be the new fine dining option...of course only one choice of curry, “curry” flavoured...if you are really pushing the boat out, dessert will be a trip to the state owned ice cream shop.
Having a curry will be banned under Corbyn.
A white English person having a curry is a form of cultural appropriation by the imperial nation and her people.
Bangers and mash for you.
Slightly related, this made me chuckle.
Doing so, pointed to the gender imbalance, but many watching felt it also discredited the achievements of Guillermo del Toro and Jordan Peele as people of colour.
Mafia supergrass who turned informant after her husband was killed by the Sicilian mob wins a seat in Italian government - despite not being allowed to show her face in public
A stonking 40% of 31-44 year olds in Italy voted Five Star, a party whose policies include anti-vaccination.
That is a vote of desperation.
Edit: Renzi has announced he will resign once a government is formed. Though that may take some time!
Brexit, the move across Europe to the hard right and left is the clearest evidence of the out of touch Europe elite and it is only going to end in tears for so many
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
An identity crisis within the Conservative Party. Obviously not worth it.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
An identity crisis within the Conservative Party. Obviously not worth it.
It clearly extends further than that, 52% voted to leave.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal.
It says our deal will be worse than now.
You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
An identity crisis within the Conservative Party. Obviously not worth it.
Remainer talking to remainer again. The 17 million plus votes to leave were not from the conservative party
Yes, Ed Miliband bears a heavy responsibility for the worsening of the Syria humanitarian crisis.
And when he was a minister, he was quite incompetent. I hadn't realised until recently was a screw-up his electricity smart meters scheme - which we're all paying for, and which was forced on the electricity companies against their will - was. He somehow managed to force through a scheme whereby the meters installed are readable only by the current electricity supplier. If you change supplier, you go back to manual reading. And if you then change back to the original supplier, they can no longer read their own meter! It's like a modern Tanganyika groundnut scheme in its full-on wastefulness.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Yes, we simultaneously overestimate and underestimate our influence in global affairs.
I remember that vote too. Obama was wavering, and Miliband gave him the excuse he needed. Probably Miliband’s biggest “achievement”, along with changing the membership rules of the Labour Party to allow in Corbyn.
A stonking 40% of 31-44 year olds in Italy voted Five Star, a party whose policies include anti-vaccination.
That is a vote of desperation.
Edit: Renzi has announced he will resign once a government is formed. Though that may take some time!
A lot of mention of how bad the vote was for the centre-left PD, which is true. But how much moreso for Forza and the centre right, reduced below 15%. Though Lega and Forza have typically been part of the same grouping over the years, it is arguable that the centre right block is much less coherent than the centre-left block, Berlusconi has not been shy of strange bedfellows politically, meaning centre left parties out polled centre right by around 24-14.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Four of the top ten (and two of the top three) EU>Non-EU city pairs involve London and the USA, there will be a deal no matter what happens, neither country can afford for there not to be one.
It doesn't say there will not be a deal. It says our deal will be worse than now. You won. Suck it up!
No, it doesn't say that. It says the initial offer by the US is worse than the deal we have now. I suspect that our starting position asks for something better than the deal we have now. Until both sides have agreed we have no idea whether the final deal will be better or worse than the current deal. Indeed, even then it is possible people will disagree as to whether the new deal is better or worse.
As an aside, everybody we have to make new arrangements with (whether on travel or trade) is going to use this as an opportunity to get their pound of flesh.
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
All this to assuage an identity crisis? Is it worth it?
An identity crisis within the Conservative Party. Obviously not worth it.
Remainer talking to remainer again. The 17 million plus votes to leave were not from the conservative party
Of course not, Mr Wales. You are quite right, not from the Conservative Party at all. Most of them, in my opinion, were cast against the Conservative Party, its effete and useless leadership (Cameron and Osborne) and the whole gang of international multi-millionaires and oligarchs. There votes were then hijacked by the aforementioned toffs etc to do down Britain and flog us off to the Americans, French, Chinese etc. This is a work still in progress.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
No we don't need more revenue. We need to cut our spending. The State already takes far too much of our money.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
" British equities are the worst rated asset class globally amongst big investors, languishing at the bottom of a list of 22 different classes of global assets. A survey of 163 fund managers by Bank of America, reported by the FT, showed UK company shares to be the least popular investment option and most likely to be backed to fall in price. "
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
Oh Lord give us houses and taxes, just not on or near me.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
What level do you consider oldies to be rich
The level that brings in the appropriate level of revenues.
Pensioners are wealthier than average, yet one pound in seven spent by the government is spent on a state pension. It's a completely indefensible level of intergenerational subsidy.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Your home is not a 'wealth' it is a place to live.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
No we don't need more revenue. We need to cut our spending. The State already takes far too much of our money.
Had Osborne remained Chancellor his target was for spending to fall to 35% of GDP, the same as the tax take and to the same level as the last years of the Thatcher government and the first years of the Blair government.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
What level do you consider oldies to be rich
The level that brings in the appropriate level of revenues.
Pensioners are wealthier than average, yet one pound in seven spent by the government is spent on a state pension. It's a completely indefensible level of intergenerational subsidy.
And pensioners have paid tax all their lives and continue to do so beyond retirement.
How much is the appropriate level of revenue you want from oldies
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
What level do you consider oldies to be rich
The level that brings in the appropriate level of revenues.
Pensioners are wealthier than average, yet one pound in seven spent by the government is spent on a state pension. It's a completely indefensible level of intergenerational subsidy.
Actually I don't disagree with adjusting taxation to take more from the wealthy elderly. But it should be tied to a massive reduction in spending. We can get rid of all the extra benefits the wealthy elderly get for a start.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Tax old people's income, make them pay NI, it will raise more than enough to fill the NHS funding gap.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Yes increasing inheritance tax is political suicide and will still end up being paid by the younger generation.
His proposal to have more top rate bands for council tax assessment were much more sensible
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
End the triple lock. - Agreed
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
I think there is scope to raise the tax take from income, BUT (and it's a big but) only if the currently ludicrously high marginal rates at various points in the income curve are sorted out first. For example, we currently have a 62% marginal tax rate on income from £100K to £120K on earned income, plus an additional 13.8% employer's NI. That means that the total marginal rate is 67%. There's no way you can get extra revenue by bumping that up, you have to reduce it to something vaguely sane To add insult to injury, unearned income is taxed at a much lower rate. It's all completely barmy, which strongly suggests that a more sensible system could raise more whilst reducing damaging distortion to rational economic decisions.
A stonking 40% of 31-44 year olds in Italy voted Five Star, a party whose policies include anti-vaccination.
That is a vote of desperation.
Edit: Renzi has announced he will resign once a government is formed. Though that may take some time!
A lot of mention of how bad the vote was for the centre-left PD, which is true. But how much moreso for Forza and the centre right, reduced below 15%. Though Lega and Forza have typically been part of the same grouping over the years, it is arguable that the centre right block is much less coherent than the centre-left block, Berlusconi has not been shy of strange bedfellows politically, meaning centre left parties out polled centre right by around 24-14.
Lega are populist right and Forza Italia are establishment right, it is like an alliance between UKIP and Boris led Tories
Is there any possibility of Theresa May having another fit of boldness after March 29th and at the first subsequent sign of trouble taking the back me or sack me option? (Yes, I know she cannot call a leadership contest herself, but she can surely t rigger the necessary letter writing). The reason being the one year she gets it she wins, even narrowly, will take her through Brexit, and she will only have to worry about the parliamentary mathematics rather than the Tory mathematics, unless, unless, the Brexiteers go for the nuclear option.
The other upside is that the Tory process is rapid, so only a minimal amount of campaigning to do.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Tax old people's income, make them pay NI, it will raise more than enough to fill the NHS funding gap.
As a pensioner I pay tax on my pension income but of course not working I do not pay NI.
I fully support working pensioners paying NI and the council tax system needs a lot more higher level bands
Regardless of whether you approve of higher income tax, or higher inheritance tax, Willetts' utterances have no reason at all: http://www.bbc.co.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
him.
Except we need revenue, and the only place left to go is wealth. If the Tory’s don’t think the unthinkable, Labour will.
Your home is not a 'wealth' it is a place to live.
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
Technically it is the estate of the baby boomers who pay the tax.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
Good old two brains. One of the major attractions of voting Tory is that you get to keep/pass down your family assets in case anyone forgot to tell him.
Rich oldies need to start coughing up.
End the triple lock. Raise the retirement age. Make them pay NI. Increase inheritance tax. And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
Inheritance tax is not a tax on the “young”, it is a tax on those who inherit. These days they tend to be middle aged, and the (unearned) money simply perpetuates the gap between haves and have nots.
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Is there any possibility of Theresa May having another fit of boldness after March 29th and at the first subsequent sign of trouble taking the back me or sack me option? (Yes, I know she cannot call a leadership contest herself, but she can surely t rigger the necessary letter writing). The reason being the one year she gets it she wins, even narrowly, will take her through Brexit, and she will only have to worry about the parliamentary mathematics rather than the Tory mathematics, unless, unless, the Brexiteers go for the nuclear option.
The other upside is that the Tory process is rapid, so only a minimal amount of campaigning to do.
No need - TM is taking the Country through Brexit and right now has a pretty united party.
Furthermore, the process is not rapid as candidates would have to go through hustings before narrowing down to the two who then have to go through the membership vote
Comments
if it had been in thirds...!
https://twitter.com/rob_merrick/status/970698623079124994?s=21
We saw Deontay Wilder get past Luis Ortiz, having been rocked in r.7 and then coming back to knock the Cuban out in r.10. Orthodoxy is that Wilder relied on his punching power, aggression and heart, rather than technique, to get past an ageing but better boxer.
Similarly, the orthodoxy is that we expect AJ to KO anyone who comes up in front of him, including Joseph Parker later this month, relying more on punching power than technique, where he is still learning the latter. But Parker can box, perhaps is more of a natural boxer, can also bang and, as AJ gets bigger and bigger, can use the ring to keep clear of those big shots (he also can take a shot). It is entirely possible that he outmanoeuvres AJ, gets behind his jab, and then finds the perfect shot or shots to stop AJ.
Now, this is unlikely for Parker to do, but not the current 7.2 against on BF unlikely and I have backed him at that price. (I have also backed the draw as Canelo/Golovkin reminded us that this is how fights can end.)
Mr. Mark (2), fair warning: those who use the abominable expression "more sleeps" may find themselves being loaded head first into an enormous cannon.
Cheers, Mr. Topping.
Lots of lovely tips today.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-43290756
https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/970677938462056455
I'm halfway through and already feel like a KFC. Must resist!
Brexit was a decision made by a majority of the British people in a democratic referendum. The Conservative government at the time advocated Remain. The present one is merely implementing the referendum decision. Labour's position -if it can be called a position -is also for Brexit and Labour is led by a lifelong brexiteer.
I dont think we should read too much into the hammering that the Tories are likely to get in London-especially in a mid term situation. London is also fertile ground for Labour. Even Ed Miliband did well in London.
Labour will do a lap of honour the next day. But Labour is in a state of hubris. Nemesis comes later....................
Another good man gone, RIP.
"Linda Macs veggie sausages are great"
Hmm ... veggie sausage, cooked gently, almost simmered until a deep brown colour, sprinkled with paprika and served piping hot ... before being tipped softly into the nearest rubbish bin.
If it doesn't stick you ribs together and leave a greasy film around the sink, it's not worth cooking.
https://www.markreckless.com/markreckless_OoFl93tb.php
US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. These typically require airlines to be majority owned and controlled by parties from their country of origin.
Such limits would be problematic for British carriers as they have large foreign shareholdings
So, in the case of British Airways, the issue is that it is part of IAG (together with Iberia), and it has a large international shareholding. I would be staggered if even a third of IAG's shareholder base was in the UK.
Virgin Atlantic is 51% controlled by Virgin Group, and 49% by Delta Airlines. In theory, this should be less problematic, as Virgin Group is British. However, if they dig into the beneficial ownership of Virgin Group, they might conclude it is controlled from various Caribbean tax havens.
https://www.open-britain.co.uk/mcgovern_bank_of_america_survey_shows_all_is_not_well_with_the_british_economy
We need to do a deal now, and therefore we're going to concede on far more points than we would ever normally do. You can see this in Korea, where the government there is pushing back on access to the financial services market that was granted to the EU. (I suspect if we have four or five years to make a deal, then there would be no problem. But we're the supplicant and it shows.)
This is a classic example of "nations don't have friends, they have interests".
Doing so, pointed to the gender imbalance, but many watching felt it also discredited the achievements of Guillermo del Toro and Jordan Peele as people of colour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43284494
I do wonder if the writer Ben Sutherland has ever seen del Toro.
That is a vote of desperation.
Edit: Renzi has announced he will resign once a government is formed. Though that may take some time!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5464635/Widow-mafia-victim-elected-Italian-parliament.html
https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-london-is-the-most-unequal-place-in-the-uk-11275891
In other words, most lower-middle class people have moved out of London.
https://twitter.com/Policy_Exchange/status/970660710542921728
And when he was a minister, he was quite incompetent. I hadn't realised until recently was a screw-up his electricity smart meters scheme - which we're all paying for, and which was forced on the electricity companies against their will - was. He somehow managed to force through a scheme whereby the meters installed are readable only by the current electricity supplier. If you change supplier, you go back to manual reading. And if you then change back to the original supplier, they can no longer read their own meter! It's like a modern Tanganyika groundnut scheme in its full-on wastefulness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43292377
He effectively says we either tax baby boomers (his preference) or younger generations pay more. Except he then suggests increasing inheritance tax. That won't be paid by baby boomers, as they'll be dead. It'll be paid by their children. The people Willetts says shouldn't pay more. Oaf.
I think he's drawing the distinction between a one off tax which is what an inheritance tax is versus a regular recurring tax which is what income tax/NI is.
I remember that vote too. Obama was wavering, and Miliband gave him the excuse he needed. Probably Miliband’s biggest “achievement”, along with changing the membership rules of the Labour Party to allow in Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/970720887505907713
No wonder Mrs May is confused.
I had to misfortune to click on a Sky News tweet about that explosion in Leicester, christ it was a sewer.
Pensioners are wealthier than average, yet one pound in seven spent by the government is spent on a state pension. It's a completely indefensible level of intergenerational subsidy.
Raise the retirement age.
Make them pay NI.
Increase inheritance tax.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax.
Or beggar the grandkids.
Your home is not 'wealth' it is a place to live.
However Brexit and Corbyn put paid to that
How much is the appropriate level of revenue you want from oldies
His proposal to have more top rate bands for council tax assessment were much more sensible
Raise the retirement age. - Very much agreed
Make them pay NI. - Very much agreed
Increase inheritance tax. - Absolutely not. That is a tax on the young not the old.
And implement a very modest property tax to replace council tax. - You mean like Rates? There was a reason we got rid of those last time.
The other upside is that the Tory process is rapid, so only a minimal amount of campaigning to do.
I fully support working pensioners paying NI and the council tax system needs a lot more higher level bands
In an ideal world, I would tax it at the same rate as income tax. But as that’s not politically possible, I would look at ways of clamping down on avoidance.
As for rates, we have them in NZ and they work fine. I’m not sure what the problem was/is. No sane person can defend the hugely regressive council tax system.
Furthermore, the process is not rapid as candidates would have to go through hustings before narrowing down to the two who then have to go through the membership vote
It is not going to happen
Inheritance is simply income, and should be taxed accordingly.