Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
Look at healthcare outcomes rather than some imagined “front line healthcare”. They have improved.
Here's a radical idea. Lets have companies pay wages their employees can afford to live on. Those employees then buy goods and services from companies who pay actual taxes creating jobs. Then we have more people working being paid enough to have spare cash to buy goods and services. Companies with order books can then borrow to invest in expansion, creating more jobs.
I think it used to be called capitalism. Investment - and borrowing for investment - wasn't a dirty word. So as a starter for 10 lets borrow to invest in infrastructure - our roads, railways, airports and broadband need a serious upgrade and the private sector isn't doing it. So we borrow. Invest in schemes. Get a short term return by putting people to work and having their employer pay taxes. Then a long term return from economic growth. And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.
This is just verbal canary style diarrhoea. We normaly get better from here.
“And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.” It just doesn’t make sense. It’s nonsense. It’s fair to criticise commissioning. But don’t be under some illusion that the nhs paying itself more to carry out the work itself is somehow going to release large amounts of cash. There is a massive positive role for other organisations to carry out work on behalf of the nhs.
Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
It’s more to do with increase demand across the board. And though there are record funds, the demands and expectations are substantially greater across the board. There’s only really being austerity in local government and the police.
So no cuts in education? No cuts in front line NHS provision? No cuts in social care? No cuts in social security? No disabled people "cured" and having their car and wheelchair taken away only to posthumously win their appeal having died of the condition they were "cured" of?
Again. It’s like a canary twitter feed. Waiting for the 100,000 million who have died due to austerity next.
Sort of thinking that should have been done 30 years ago.
It was nascent in Maastricht with its different pillars and opt outs but the federalists wouldn't have it and insisted that we were all on the same journey to unity, even if we were at different speeds. And they made sure that was the reality come Lisbon too. It is unfortunate because other versions that would have been much more attractive to Brits were possible and a majority of us did not share that vision.
Indeed. I suspect the Brussels apologists, one of which has already popped up downthread, will be quick to say that’s what it’s all been about all along.
But, we all know that’s nonsense.
We would have got there in the end, simply by ongoing resistance and opt out from the most federalist implementations. One of the ironies of Brexit in 30 years time will be that we are highly likely to end up in an identical place to that we would have done had we remained.
After all, in an overlapping circles EU, just what is the point of EFTA? I reckon in 2050, we will be in a basic EU plus some circles alongside the merged EFTA countries - we will have just done it Icarus fashion rather than building our way to that point.
It is striking the serious problems that we are neglecting as we fanny around with Brexit.
We have been neglecting a great many problems (housing and power generation being only the two most obvious) for years if not decades. What was the last government to risk serious unpopularity by taking tough calls? Certainly Blair never did - except over Iraq, which ironically was the one time he should have bowed to pressure!
Absolutely right.
I dimly remember a grocer's daughter from Grantham who was fairly good at being tough though.
And her underrated successor had his days.
But Mrs Thatcher had large majorities so could ride out unpopularity, while the current incumbent cannot.
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
Trump will never consider he will lose and no way he will want to go down on history as wimping out after only 1 term
Possibly. If it looks like he’ll lose heavily I can see him standing down with the excuse that “fake news” has made it impossible to compete fairly in an election.
I don't agree. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are all nation states but they get on very well both with each other and other countries. But most people in those countries don't want to abolish their country and become one large country.
You mean don't look to the United Kingdom as a model and don't want to become a country called Scandinavia?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
If only there were a continent wide organisation we could join to share the defence burden with.
Dangerous argument, given no EU country takes defence at all seriously. Indeed, we still have the most effective military in Europe and the only one with significant long-range striking power. For the rest, they just hope the Yanks will do something if it all kicks off - as they have for 73 years.
I am reminded of Sheppard Frere writing in 1963 of the end of Roman Britain: 'The plight of a wealthy people dependent for their security on a great power whose strategic interests were, in the last analysis, centred elsewhere is not without interest today'
The quote supports my point. We are more secure as part of Europe than part of NATO. Trump isn't as bad as Honorius, but even so there is every reason to believe that decisions made in Washington won't reflect our interests.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
The only thing that matters is capital controls (which I think he said a couple of years ago that he would do day 1)
Everything else can be figured out later
He didn't.
"Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that."
He didn't think there would be capital flight but he had a plan if there was.
Some predictable response from PB Tories to the conundrum of how their government spend record amounts on the NHS yet simultaneously front line services are dangerously spread thin. More cash tipped in the top, less cash at the bottom. You honestly claiming that the vast cost of running all these myriad contracts and markets and managers isn't swallowing the cash?
Again to my basic point. In 8 years you've simultaneously added Eight Hundred Billion Pounds to the National Debt and cut front line health care, social care, education, defence, local government etc etc etc. More and more money spent with less and less to show for it. Where is all the money going...?
Look at healthcare outcomes rather than some imagined “front line healthcare”. They have improved.
Indeed. My own local nhs trust which struggles on many things has proposed reducing its beds on one ward. Cue the outrage. But it’s cutting them to go and provide the service in peoples homes. Same service just delivered differently. We all (and rightly so) expect so much more. And it only takes a pause in progress to fall behind.
It’s truly flabbergasting to see how resource rich, in terms of facilities and staff schools are. A totally different league to when I left school twenty plus years ago. It is expected. And it’s when schools are having to pause and even slightly roll back over the last two years that we notice.
Public services are very different to what they were even fifteen years ago.
Mr. Jonathan, I don't see why globalisation requires us to be part of a United States of Europe.
Mr. HYUFD, hmm. Possible. But if he thought he might lose, voluntarily leaving is better than being kicked out of the White House. He's also elderly, so health could be a factor.
Trump will never consider he will lose and no way he will want to go down on history as wimping out after only 1 term
Possibly. If it looks like he’ll lose heavily I can see him standing down with the excuse that “fake news” has made it impossible to compete fairly in an election.
Or simply declare "Job done - America is great again" then skip town ahead of the law.
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
"These are not get out of jail free cards. If the markets lose confidence that borrowings will be paid back, the costs of borrowing rise and can rise very sharply very quickly indeed. The Italian government fell in 2011 when lenders turned their backs on it, despairing at its inability to get a grip on public spending. The latest Italian government has suddenly seen its borrowing costs rise sharply when it thumbed its nose at EU spending."
That is not what would happen. Britain can never face an Italian-style debt crisis, because we had the wisdom to retain our own currency, despite the Blairites, Clarkeists and other europhiles being desperate to scrap it. As I have pointed out before, Japan faces low borrowing costs and inflation despite a debt/GDP ratio more than twice ours. The markets know it can monetize the debt if it wants.
Rather, what would happen if the Government ran too big a deficit (and the Japanese experience says that this would have to be truly vast) is that the pound would fall and inflation would creep up. But as we have a floating exchange rate, it would take time to feed through and few voters would be able to grasp the transmission mechanism. Exporters may even welcome a lower currency. The Socialists would do what they always do - blame speculators for their own mistakes.
In fact, even that may not happen, if the markets believe that the government is borrowing to spend wisely (on, say, infrastructure). The economic difficulty with the Labour Magic Money Tree proposals is not that they can't be financed without raising taxes. It's that they are spending on completely the wrong things to enhance the economy's productive capacity. Using the Magic Money Tree to finance tax cuts to business or well-directed infrastructure spending could be economically prudent. Nationalising the water industry for no obvious reason, and no doubt whatever else they want to spend the money on, won't be.
I guess in order for this pension grab to work, the Bank of England would have to buy a great deal more of future issued gilts, as pension companies weren't anymore.
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
You are mistaken. It was a decision by the appeals court which the Suireme Court refused to revisit
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
Not if you traditionally have a large portion of your population of a specific demographic who do not have a "traditional" (who's tradition?) residential address.
It's a naked, tagrgetted, attempt at disenfranchisement.
The quote supports my point. We are more secure as part of Europe than part of NATO. Trump isn't as bad as Honorius, but even so there is every reason to believe that decisions made in Washington won't reflect our interests.
NATO isn't and has never been a coalition of equals. Our security interests are protected by it to the extent that they coincide with those of the US and not one step further.
The strategic challenge to the US is now China not Russia hence their "Pacific Pivot". NATO's eurocentricity means it's going to become increasingly irrelevant to the US no matter who is President. Although Trump is particularly and trenchantly opposed to NATO and will miss no opportunity to weaken or undermine it.
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
You forgot to add that they take far more drugs
I am not sure that is correct, though may be in some localities.
Drug and alcohol abuse seem to be moving to an older age range here in Leicester. The spice zombies are mostly in their thirties and forties.
The quote supports my point. We are more secure as part of Europe than part of NATO. Trump isn't as bad as Honorius, but even so there is every reason to believe that decisions made in Washington won't reflect our interests.
NATO isn't and has never been a coalition of equals. Our security interests are protected by it to the extent that they coincide with those of the US and not one step further.
The strategic challenge to the US is now China not Russia hence their "Pacific Pivot". NATO's eurocentricity means it's going to become increasingly irrelevant to the US no matter who is President. Although Trump is particularly and trenchantly opposed to NATO and will miss no opportunity to weaken or undermine it.
It was under our supposedly good friend Obama that the last US MBTs were withdrawn from Europe. The pivot is strategically inevitable and Europe just isn't important to the US any more. Trump is just a blunt loudmouth about it but the policy has not changed.
I think we need to do some deep thinking about the extent that we can rely on NATO outside the intelligence field and what we need to protect our own interests.
Here's a radical idea. Lets have companies pay wages their employees can afford to live on. Those employees then buy goods and services from companies who pay actual taxes creating jobs. Then we have more people working being paid enough to have spare cash to buy goods and services. Companies with order books can then borrow to invest in expansion, creating more jobs.
I think it used to be called capitalism. Investment - and borrowing for investment - wasn't a dirty word. So as a starter for 10 lets borrow to invest in infrastructure - our roads, railways, airports and broadband need a serious upgrade and the private sector isn't doing it. So we borrow. Invest in schemes. Get a short term return by putting people to work and having their employer pay taxes. Then a long term return from economic growth. And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.
Are you aware that employment and retail sales are at record highs ?
Now its possible that the balance within the economy is wrong - too much money being spent on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays (another thing at a record high) and not enough on business and infrastructure investment.
But the answer to that is to rebalance the economy into something more sustainable rather than going on another borrowing splurge.
The quote supports my point. We are more secure as part of Europe than part of NATO. Trump isn't as bad as Honorius, but even so there is every reason to believe that decisions made in Washington won't reflect our interests.
NATO isn't and has never been a coalition of equals. Our security interests are protected by it to the extent that they coincide with those of the US and not one step further.
The strategic challenge to the US is now China not Russia hence their "Pacific Pivot". NATO's eurocentricity means it's going to become increasingly irrelevant to the US no matter who is President. Although Trump is particularly and trenchantly opposed to NATO and will miss no opportunity to weaken or undermine it.
A lot of Russian strategic assumptions are being undermined at the moment, at the same time as they are overreaching.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
You forgot to add that they take far more drugs
I am not sure that is correct, though may be in some localities.
Drug and alcohol abuse seem to be moving to an older age range here in Leicester. The spice zombies are mostly in their thirties and forties.
I believe the recent increase in drug deaths in Scotland is largely 35-45 years olds, ie people who were introduced to drugs in their teens and never managed to shake off the 'life' (except now, in the most literal sense).
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
You are mistaken. It was a decision by the appeals court which the Suireme Court refused to revisit
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
I'm no expert, but I think that a statement like 'they can come up with a way to create that' is a rather bold statement to make. If you live somewhere where there are no house or street names or numbers how would you (as an individual resident) propose to do that? I understand they use PO boxes for mail.
This is rather symptomatic at the moment with issues - we just sort them; it's easy.
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Nationalised industries are starved of investment ny all governments because education, hospitals and defence get priority.
Hence when BT was nationalised it took three months or more to have a telephone installed.
British Airways had to buy planes from where the government directed it rather than the best planes for its customers and routes.
There was a lack of investment in old utility infrastructure like electricity, water and gas.
So I've heard, but in many areas it remains popular, whereas pensions may be less so.
They weren't popular when they were nationalised.
Badly run, particularly lack of investment because (understandable) low priority for government funds.
Nationalised utilities should be able to borrow in the markets against their assets like any other business and not compete for government funds. So should Local Authorities be able to borrow against their assets to build social housing. Other countries including the US do that.
The problem is the iron grip of the Treasury and the inclusion of Local Authority debt in the National debt. The Treasury was happy enough to go off balance sheet with PFI and Student loans but won't allow Local Authorities to borrow on their own assets.
Incidentally debt at 85% of GDP is not a lot. The interest is well covered by taxation. Public companies carry far more as a proportion eg GSK has debt of £24b serviced by operating profit of £4.4b. The average UK mortgage is £123K. The average UK income is £27K.
People say debt is 85% of GDP and purse their lips. Without context it is meaningless.
EDIT: There is no suggestion anywhere that the UK government would "nationalise" pensions (except by Alastair) so don't get your knickers in a twist.
The truth is that BT was very badly run as a public company. It faced no competition, and there were no consequences to management for offering a terrible service. It was also protected by legislation: until Mercury (owned by C&W) came along, it was illegal to compete with BT in offering long distance calls in the UK.
The others I know less about. But I think it's very hard to have publicly owned companies in competitive markets.
Belatedly, a great example of the final point is found in India. To save all those juicy jobs for life generated by Air India, there’s a reasonable chance that the entire Indian private aviation industry will be immolated. State jobs seems to be perceived as more valuable and (this is the pinch point) inherently more moral.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
I look at the MOD - 60-100billion for a nuclear weapon system on submarines which will in all likelihood be obsolete in the next few decades, 5billion (each) for 2 aircraft carriers many commentators say we cannot afford to man or have airplanes on,- aircraft we cannot afford to buy for the carriers...... as the fifth largest defence spenders in the world, there is plenty of public spending on defence I would describe as discretionary which offers huge opportunities for spending elsewhere.
That’s remarkably complacent.
Our defences are pared to the bone in a world of growing threats. We have ships holed up in Portsmouth that can’t sail for want of money or sailors, we can barely escort our carriers, our airspace is routinely buzzed by Russian forces as are our sovereign waters intruded into. Our army is in a dire state and barely more than a militia. We have no missile defence capability.
We need sustainable and targeted increases in defence spending for at least the next decade, targeted at capability and not to fit the (forever tighter) annual pursestrings.
Defence against what. Are Russian submarines likely to come flooding through the GIUK gap? If China, our Pacific forces have always been poor. Where would we base? Fremantle, Exmouth. Given the US is moving towards neutral power ex-Pacific what next. Which meat grinder will we send the army to next, and why.
There seems to be a virility attached to spending on guns which excites some.
I am not convinced by @AlastairMeeks on pensions nationalisation, which would have a number of difficulties, including that with pension funds gone there would be few buyers of government gilts.
The problem of taxation is that you can only extract significant amounts of money from those who have significant amounts in the first place. We therefore need to look at where the money is.
Pensions could have higher rate relief stopped.
ISA pots limited, annual amounts reduced, or the proceeds taxed.
Wealth taxes, particularly on property, including drastic reduction in limits and removing the exemption for primary residence.
Transaction taxes for internet companies.
etc etc.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
The only thing that matters is capital controls (which I think he said a couple of years ago that he would do day 1)
Everything else can be figured out later
He didn't.
"Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that."
He didn't think there would be capital flight but he had a plan if there was.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is there a chart showing voting patterns of Londoners by income?
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
The only thing that matters is capital controls (which I think he said a couple of years ago that he would do day 1)
Everything else can be figured out later
He didn't.
"Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that."
He didn't think there would be capital flight but he had a plan if there was.
The capital flight will happen before the election, if people think there is a serious chance that they could be locked inside the country and/or have their assets seized if Labour take power.
Brown messed around with pensions once, to his discredit. It is one reason why so many have invested in property, which has had unfortunate consequences for the young. If another Labour chancellor is going to mess around with pensions again, I for one am not going to let him do it with my pension. I have no intention of living in poverty in my old age after a lifetime of hard work and saving.
And what of people already receiving their pension? Will the funds behind them be seized?
Democrats are boned In North Dakota for the Senate. Huge (for the size of the state) number of Native Americans have just been disenfranchised due to a voter id law.
That has to be one of the most insulting things done for a long while. And, unless I am much mistaken, due to a recent ruling by the SCOTUS.
You are mistaken. It was a decision by the appeals court which the Suireme Court refused to revisit
Asking voters to provide a residential address is not unreasonable. If native Americans don’t have “traditional residential addresses” they can come up with a way to create that.
I'm no expert, but I think that a statement like 'they can come up with a way to create that' is a rather bold statement to make. If you live somewhere where there are no house or street names or numbers how would you (as an individual resident) propose to do that? I understand they use PO boxes for mail.
This is rather symptomatic at the moment with issues - we just sort them; it's easy.
It also misses the point. Disenfranchisement isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the goal. Even if they could fix it, they wouldn't.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
He's not going to be so stupid as to announce it in advance.
It'd be bloody horrendous if the far left got into power here, but it's a credible possibility. Still staggering that Labour MPs didn't understand their own bloody leadership rules.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
He's not going to be so stupid as to announce it in advance.
What about the Salisbury convention? Or would you expect a Corbyn led government just to abolish the Lords?
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
He's not going to be so stupid as to announce it in advance.
What about the Salisbury convention? Or would you expect a Corbyn led government just to abolish the Lords?
The House of Lords can delay but it cannot block. I expect there is nothing that the Corbynites would like more than a succession of stand-up fights with the House of Lords.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
Well you'll have to report back if it happens. But generally I don't think there's a conflict between thinking that a scheme shouldn't exist and saying that, well, if it does exist I might as well take advantage of it. I'm sure many were in that position with help to buy, for example. It's similar to thinking that taxes should be higher but not voluntarily sending extra money to HMRC.
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Here are the taxation statistics for 2015/16 alongside those, for completeness:
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827 North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595 East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695 West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597 East of England 10,833 10,591 242 London 15,756 12,686 3,070 South East 12,249 10,582 1,667 South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296 England 10,699 11,297 -598 Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545 Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824 Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437 United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
He's not going to be so stupid as to announce it in advance.
What about the Salisbury convention? Or would you expect a Corbyn led government just to abolish the Lords?
The House of Lords can delay but it cannot block. I expect there is nothing that the Corbynites would like more than a succession of stand-up fights with the House of Lords.
In the Corbynite fantasy scenario of winning a General Election in the midst of a Brexit crisis, those Henry VIII powers could come in handy too...
The problems of pensions nationalisation are very substantial. The potential rewards in the short term are colossal. If I were John McDonnell, I would be working on almost nothing else right now.
I will leave the technicalities to others. But the political problem he will have is that it can easily be presented as “Labour to seize your savings.” That may be harder to deal with.
He's not going to be so stupid as to announce it in advance.
No - but a Tory party which was on the ball and not distracted (I know!) would say that that is what he is planning to do - and refer to the Pettifor work - and force him into denying it and seize on any non-denial denial and put it out there as a possibility. And/or say that his spending plans can only be paid for in this way etc. Frame the argument as “Labour seizing your savings”. It just needs enough credibility as a possibility (he is looking at nationalisation and does have uncosted spending commitments and hitting pensioners to help the young feels like a Corbynite approach) and clever tactics and before you know it you have Labour on the defensive.
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Here are the taxation statistics for 2015/16 alongside those, for completeness:
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827 North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595 East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695 West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597 East of England 10,833 10,591 242 London 15,756 12,686 3,070 South East 12,249 10,582 1,667 South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296 England 10,699 11,297 -598 Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545 Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824 Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437 United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
London's standard of living is actually apparently below the national average:
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
It is the greatest hypocrisy of the left. The best example was arch posh lefty Tony Benn using inheritance tax avoidance to benefit his dynasty.
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Here are the taxation statistics for 2015/16 alongside those, for completeness:
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827 North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595 East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695 West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597 East of England 10,833 10,591 242 London 15,756 12,686 3,070 South East 12,249 10,582 1,667 South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296 England 10,699 11,297 -598 Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545 Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824 Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437 United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
Thanks, I guess it's worth noting that tax and spend per head of population isn't necessarily a good metric - especially for London - as a fair amount of it is related to businesses not individuals.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers)
I remember one BBC presenter, outraged, talking to an economist; 'But we're talking about typical second home owners here' - 'There's nothing 'typical' about a second home owner - they're under a tenth of the population.'
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Here are the taxation statistics for 2015/16 alongside those, for completeness:
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827 North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595 East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695 West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597 East of England 10,833 10,591 242 London 15,756 12,686 3,070 South East 12,249 10,582 1,667 South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296 England 10,699 11,297 -598 Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545 Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824 Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437 United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
London's standard of living is actually apparently below the national average:
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
Mr. Fishing, there's a bit of chicken-and-egg, though, which does make things a bit tricky to assess.
London has the lion's share of museums and art galleries, and a huge number of government jobs (for obvious reasons). It also has a huge amount of transport spending.
There are legitimate arguments for a disproportionate amount to spent on London. Population density means you get more bang for your buck with transport spending, and the capital obviously has to be the seat of many state jobs. Similarly high population coupled with good transport links means galleries and museums can be accessed by a significant number of people.
But, even given all that, there's still too much concentration there. The Royal Armouries (now based in Leeds) is fantastic. Osborne's Northern Powerhouse idea had some merit (I think it was overblown but strengthening Leeds-Manchester links could be a very good idea). Money's always seems to be found for London but always seems to go missing when the Leeds tram system rolls around.
This is also why proposals for carving England into pieces are so wretched and ill-considered. A London demagogue will get up and claim that London money should stay in London, they're exporting taxes elsewhere. A Yorkshire demagogue will get up and claim that spending per head is is far less than in rich London, and they want equality.
Both can back up their rabble-rousing words with statistical support. And both would happen if we let some political class with little understanding of or care for England slice it into pieces. If we institutionalise political division it'll only grow.
Not to mention that Wales was never carved up. Scotland was never segregated into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands. And yet some think it's ok to carve up England.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
It is the greatest hypocrisy of the left. The best example was arch posh lefty Tony Benn using inheritance tax avoidance to benefit his dynasty.
I've always found that argument a bit suspect. Surely one can want taxation to be different (and detrimental to oneself) and at the same time to live in the real world and to take advantage of the situation as it is.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
Fewer pubs, no lunchtime drinking, more alcohol-free ethnic minorities.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
No tuition fees is a massive incentive.
For the young, yes. Less so for the middle aged and those who have student debt but who won’t get that debt wiped out.
And that’s assuming that promise will be made again.
What the last election showed was not that people were prepared to pay higher taxes but that people voted for the party which promised them a free education and that they could keep their inheritances. It was the Tories who were being honest (to an extent) about social care and the other parties offering free goodies to all. Look at the wailing over increased NI contributions.
Am I cynical in thinking that such people won’t like the reality of any government that tells them the truth - if you want public goods you are going to have to pay no matter how unfair you might think it is and, yes, that means using granny’s house to pay for granny’s care etc - no matter what they say at dinner parties about being fine about paying more tax in the abstract?
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
One data point. My family and friends are without doubt drinking much less. Feel like drinking is going down a similar road to smoking.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
One data point. My family and friends are without doubt drinking much less. Feel like drinking is going down a similar road to smoking.
Ah well as long as Sean T is alive the drinks companies will be OK...
Miss Vance, is that a new case or another judgement on the old one?
I think its the final judgment on an old one.
A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged make a cake emblazoned with the message “Support Gay Marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it...
...“It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics,” Hale said in the judgment.
“But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.”
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
So I suppose people won't have to make cakes with 'Vote Labour' (for example) on them either....
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a Wedding Cake for 'Leo & Colin'?
The right decision I feel - compelling individuals or businesses to support campaigns that they don't agree with is surely an infringement of freedom of expression? Would have been very different if they hadn't served the customer because of his sexuality / support for a cause in my view.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
Well you'll have to report back if it happens. But generally I don't think there's a conflict between thinking that a scheme shouldn't exist and saying that, well, if it does exist I might as well take advantage of it. I'm sure many were in that position with help to buy, for example. It's similar to thinking that taxes should be higher but not voluntarily sending extra money to HMRC.
You have personal morality or you don’t. Flexible morality is no morality at all.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I think that’s splitting hairs. London is Left-leaning and purports to want higher taxation and higher spending. I don’t see how the Conservatives are coherently punished by Londoners for doing so when Labour would do so to a far greater degree, and they’re already voting Labour anyway.
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purelyage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
No tuition fees is a massive incentive.
For the young, yes. Less so for the middle aged and those who have student debt but who won’t get that debt wiped out. that’s assuming that promise will be made again.
What the last election showed was not that people were prepared to pay higher taxes but that people voted for the party which promised them a free education and that they could keep their inheritances. It was the Tories who were being honest (to an extent) about social care and the other parties offering free goodies to all. Look at the wailing over increased NI contributions.
Am I cynical in thinking that such people won’t like the reality of any government that tells them the truth - if you want public goods you are going to have to pay no matter how unfair you might think it is and, yes, that means using granny’s house to pay for granny’s care etc - no matter what they say at dinner parties about being fine about paying more tax in the abstract?
Our public sector is basically a welfare state that has an army. All the rest is small beer. And welfare spending is targeted at poorer areas, so the thriving areas of the country will always subsidise the rest. And that happens to be London and the SE.
Of course, welfare spending, while it alleviates the worst forms of poverty, also fosters dependency, which is why wealth divides are so persistent. There are no easy answers here.
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
It is the greatest hypocrisy of the left. The best example was arch posh lefty Tony Benn using inheritance tax avoidance to benefit his dynasty.
I've always found that argument a bit suspect. Surely one can want taxation to be different (and detrimental to oneself) and at the same time to live in the real world and to take advantage of the situation as it is.
Just because you can do something does not mean you have to do it. Inheritance tax breaks are available. They are not compulsory.
I was the executor of the wills of my oldest friend’s parents. Jewish, escaped here from Germany, built up a successful business. They made some modest provision for their daughter. She is successful in her own right. But they chose not to use all the usual tax breaks because they felt that this country had given them a home, a life and that paying a large slug of tax on their deaths was their way of paying it back. Unusual but honourable.
If you believe in paying more tax - and make a political career out of ostentatiously saying so - then it is legitimate to ask why you would avail yourself of schemes designed to reduce the tax you pay, which means that others will have to pay more. It’s the gap between your words and the way some in public life thereby present themselves as holier than thou and their actions which grate.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the best for yourself and your family. But to be accused of being selfish for wanting to keep your money for yourself by others richer than you who do exactly the same thing but present themselves as morally superior because of their political leanings is what really grates.
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
Eh? How have the Conseratives done this? If any single development has destroyed the solidarity between Londoners and non-Londoners, it has been mass immigration, which has meant that London has been flooded with people with no experience of, or interest in, the rest of the country. And non-Londoners have come to regard London as a completely different country.
There are certainly economic arguments in favour of mass immigration, but it has been disastrous for solidarity nationwide.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
One data point. My family and friends are without doubt drinking much less. Feel like drinking is going down a similar road to smoking.
So it’s just my family and friends keeping the drinking statistics up then......
Miss Vance, is that a new case or another judgement on the old one?
I think its the final judgment on an old one.
A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged make a cake emblazoned with the message “Support Gay Marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it...
...“It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics,” Hale said in the judgment.
“But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.”
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
So I suppose people won't have to make cakes with 'Vote Labour' (for example) on them either....
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a Wedding Cake for 'Leo & Colin'?
If gareth Lee wanted to sue the bakery he should have done it with his own money.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
One data point. My family and friends are without doubt drinking much less. Feel like drinking is going down a similar road to smoking.
So it’s just my family and friends keeping the drinking statistics up then......
The right decision I feel - compelling individuals or businesses to support campaigns that they don't agree with is surely an infringement of freedom of expression? Would have been very different if they hadn't served the customer because of his sexuality / support for a cause in my view.
Agree. If they had refused to make a cake for 'Leo & Colin - Congratulations on your wedding' that might be a different matter.....
The US Colorado case that made it to the Supreme Court also narrowly sided with the baker - but largely because the Colorado authorities cocked it up, and they stressed that they were making no judgement on the provision of services to gay people.
Mr. Fishing, but people who travel to see museum X also visit local shops, buy themselves dinner, etc.
Genuinely surprised by that public sector stat, but if its proportional then the absolute number can still be very high, just diluted by London's relatively enormous population.
Miss Vance, is that a new case or another judgement on the old one?
I think its the final judgment on an old one.
A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged make a cake emblazoned with the message “Support Gay Marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it...
...“It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics,” Hale said in the judgment.
“But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.”
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
So I suppose people won't have to make cakes with 'Vote Labour' (for example) on them either....
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a Wedding Cake for 'Leo & Colin'?
If gareth Lee wanted to sue the bakery he should have done it with his own money.
I’m not sure I get the central premise of the article: Londoners would accept higher taxes from a Labour government because it shares its values but not a Conservative one because it doesn’t?
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purelyage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
No tuition fees is a massive incentive.
For the young, yes. Less so for the middle aged and those who have student debt but who won’t get that debt wiped out. that’s assuming that promise will be made again.
What the last election showed was not that people were prepared to pay higher taxes but that people voted for the party which promised them a free education and that they could keep their inheritances. It was the Tories who were being honest (to an extent) about social care and the other parties offering free goodies to all. Look at the wailing over increased NI contributions.
Am I cynical in thinking that such people won’t like the reality of any government that tells them the truth - if you want public goods you are going to have to pay no matter how unfair you might think it is and, yes, that means using granny’s house to pay for granny’s care etc - no matter what they say at dinner parties about being fine about paying more tax in the abstract?
Maybe.
Quite a few parental votes in free tuition.
Although its not free tuition is it? Someone will have to pay for it. Either taxes on the rich will go up or taxes on everyone will go up
I’m willing to bet that the cries of rage from rich London Labour voters when a Labour government taxes their expensive houses and other assets will be heard all over the country. Poor things!
Is "very affluent people who vote for Labour thinking their taxes won't go up" really a significant demographic?
Probably not by numbers. But noisy and well connected in the media (think of the hoo-ha when child benefit was taken from higher rate taxpayers) and concentrated in a number of constituencies. They may well say they are happy to pay more taxes but may well think that they can find ways around them. If in fact they are affected and hard I’m not at all convinced that they will be quite as keen as before on the reality for them personally of a high taxing Labour government.
Purelyage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
No tuition fees is a massive incentive.
For the young, yes. Less so for the middle aged and those who have student debt but who won’t get that debt wiped out. that’s assuming that promise will be made again.
What the last election showed was not that people were prepared to pay higher taxes but that people voted for the party which promised them a free education and that they could keep their inheritances. It was the Tories who were being honest (to an extent) about social care and the other parties offering free goodies to all. Look at the wailing over increased NI contributions.
Am I cynical in thinking that such people won’t like the reality of any government that tells them the truth - if you want public goods you are going to have to pay no matter how unfair you might think it is and, yes, that means using granny’s house to pay for granny’s care etc - no matter what they say at dinner parties about being fine about paying more tax in the abstract?
Maybe.
Quite a few parental votes in free tuition.
Undoubtedly. But my financial interest in free tuition ends the day my youngest leaves university which is well before the next election. At that point waiving the existing debt becomes very interesting. But no party is offering that.
Our public sector is basically a welfare state that has an army. All the rest is small beer. And welfare spending is targeted at poorer areas, so the thriving areas of the country will always subsidise the rest. And that happens to be London and the SE.
Of course, welfare spending, while it alleviates the worst forms of poverty, also fosters dependency, which is why wealth divides are so persistent. There are no easy answers here.
Most investment on infrastructure and in general is spent around London and is a vicious circle that gets worse. It really is like a black hole sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of the country. Most unequal country on the planet.
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
Eh? How have the Conseratives done this? If any single development has destroyed the solidarity between Londoners and non-Londoners, it has been uncontrolled immigration, which has meant that London has been flooded with people with no experience of, or interest in, the rest of the country. And non-Londoners have come to regard London as a completely different country.
There are certainly economic arguments in favour of mass immigration, but it has been disastrous for solidarity nationwide.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
One data point. My family and friends are without doubt drinking much less. Feel like drinking is going down a similar road to smoking.
So it’s just my family and friends keeping the drinking statistics up then......
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
Fewer pubs, no lunchtime drinking, more alcohol-free ethnic minorities.
Mr. Fishing, there's a bit of chicken-and-egg, though, which does make things a bit tricky to assess.
London has the lion's share of museums and art galleries, and a huge number of government jobs (for obvious reasons). It also has a huge amount of transport spending.
There are legitimate arguments for a disproportionate amount to spent on London. Population density means you get more bang for your buck with transport spending, and the capital obviously has to be the seat of many state jobs. Similarly high population coupled with good transport links means galleries and museums can be accessed by a significant number of people.
But, even given all that, there's still too much concentration there. The Royal Armouries (now based in Leeds) is fantastic. Osborne's Northern Powerhouse idea had some merit (I think it was overblown but strengthening Leeds-Manchester links could be a very good idea). Money's always seems to be found for London but always seems to go missing when the Leeds tram system rolls around.
This is also why proposals for carving England into pieces are so wretched and ill-considered. A London demagogue will get up and claim that London money should stay in London, they're exporting taxes elsewhere. A Yorkshire demagogue will get up and claim that spending per head is is far less than in rich London, and they want equality.
Both can back up their rabble-rousing words with statistical support. And both would happen if we let some political class with little understanding of or care for England slice it into pieces. If we institutionalise political division it'll only grow.
Not to mention that Wales was never carved up. Scotland was never segregated into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands. And yet some think it's ok to carve up England.
MD did you make a mistake there and put carve instead of blow
Miss Vance, is that a new case or another judgement on the old one?
I think its the final judgment on an old one.
A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged make a cake emblazoned with the message “Support Gay Marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it...
...“It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics,” Hale said in the judgment.
“But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.”
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
So I suppose people won't have to make cakes with 'Vote Labour' (for example) on them either....
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a Wedding Cake for 'Leo & Colin'?
If gareth Lee wanted to sue the bakery he should have done it with his own money.
Whose money did he do it with?
public funds via the NI Equaitiy Commission so fas as I can make out
theyre claiming not surprisingly that it was public money well spent
A very interesting, if not a little scary, piece. I will remind everyone of public spending (£s) per head of population:
Northern Ireland - 11,042 Scotland - 10,651 London - 10,192 Wales - 10,076 North East - 9,680 North West - 9,429 West Midlands - 8,846 Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810 South West - 8,549 East Midlands - 8,282 East - 8,155 South East - 8,111
Here are the taxation statistics for 2015/16 alongside those, for completeness:
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827 North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043 Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595 East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695 West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597 East of England 10,833 10,591 242 London 15,756 12,686 3,070 South East 12,249 10,582 1,667 South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296 England 10,699 11,297 -598 Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545 Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824 Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437 United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
London's standard of living is actually apparently below the national average:
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
How are any of these figures geo-located to the regions?
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
Fewer pubs, no lunchtime drinking, more alcohol-free ethnic minorities.
Northamptonshire has not gone bust. It’s no longer allowed to engage in new spend. It’s not hard to trace a history of poor management at the council. Many county councils are as rotten as those long held labour mets.
Speaking as a county councillor... my own local authority is not far away from the same.
One thing that needs to go is the two tier district/council system, which is why I'm very much in favour of the blue's proposal to change Nottinghamshire to a unitary authority. I pointed out a fairly simple and obvious saving would be that you'd only need one website for everything, which was mocked here as a tiny saving. Wither 'look after the pennies, and the pounds take care of themselves'.
A Nottinghamshire reorganisation is long overdue, and should include a long-needed expansion of the city's boundaries, as the leader of the City Council Jon Collins has requested.
The official City of Nottingham is arguably the most batshit bonkers local authority boundary in the country, it is ludicrously tightly drawn, with Forest's ground not even officially in the City, despite being only a mile or so from the city centre. The city boundary should be extended out to the Derbyshire border in the west, south through West Bridgford and north through Gedling and Hucknall. Should have been done years ago.
Greater Nottingham is a pretty big urban area – actually extends into Derbyshire with places like Ilkeston and Long Eaton part and parcel of it, nearer to Nottingham than they are to Derby. But annexing parts of Derbyshire might be a bridge too far for the bureaucrats!
I see there’s headline news about young people drinking less alcohol again.
Has anyone done a mass correlation study to see how drinking less, smoking less, having less sex and pregnancy and fewer “fights” *but also* greater eating disorders, online bullying, suicides, loneliness, rawer social skills, and mental health issues, obesity is all linked to them simply interacting with one another far less physically than they used to?
It was impossible to socialise, build friendships or relationships other than in person when I was a teenager. And alcohol was what nulled your nerves to make that move. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.
I have no idea how it works now, but I suspect a lot of networked streaming and groupchat from bedrooms, and far fewer meet ups at house parties and skateparks?
You forgot to add that they take far more drugs
I am not sure that is correct, though may be in some localities.
Drug and alcohol abuse seem to be moving to an older age range here in Leicester. The spice zombies are mostly in their thirties and forties.
Is there any data to suggest drugs are reducing. Seems to be lots of noise re opposite and if you look at prisons it is endemic. Interesting to know if all the noise is just that rather than everybody and their dog using drugs of one sort or another.
Comments
“And we fix the NHS by stripping away all of the profits being made by Tory donor companies leeching off the system - we don't need doctors running a commissioning business, we need them being doctors.”
It just doesn’t make sense. It’s nonsense. It’s fair to criticise commissioning. But don’t be under some illusion that the nhs paying itself more to carry out the work itself is somehow going to release large amounts of cash. There is a massive positive role for other organisations to carry out work on behalf of the nhs.
The ‘Tory donors’ bit really is just crass.
After all, in an overlapping circles EU, just what is the point of EFTA? I reckon in 2050, we will be in a basic EU plus some circles alongside the merged EFTA countries - we will have just done it Icarus fashion rather than building our way to that point.
I dimly remember a grocer's daughter from Grantham who was fairly good at being tough though.
And her underrated successor had his days.
But Mrs Thatcher had large majorities so could ride out unpopularity, while the current incumbent cannot.
"Speaking at a fringe event at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton about the early days of a Labour government, Mr McDonnell said: "What if there is a run on the pound? What happens if there is this concept of capital flight? I don't think there will be, but you never know, so we've got to scenario plan for that."
He didn't think there would be capital flight but he had a plan if there was.
It’s truly flabbergasting to see how resource rich, in terms of facilities and staff schools are. A totally different league to when I left school twenty plus years ago. It is expected. And it’s when schools are having to pause and even slightly roll back over the last two years that we notice.
Public services are very different to what they were even fifteen years ago.
I think he will stand again though.
That is not what would happen. Britain can never face an Italian-style debt crisis, because we had the wisdom to retain our own currency, despite the Blairites, Clarkeists and other europhiles being desperate to scrap it. As I have pointed out before, Japan faces low borrowing costs and inflation despite a debt/GDP ratio more than twice ours. The markets know it can monetize the debt if it wants.
Rather, what would happen if the Government ran too big a deficit (and the Japanese experience says that this would have to be truly vast) is that the pound would fall and inflation would creep up. But as we have a floating exchange rate, it would take time to feed through and few voters would be able to grasp the transmission mechanism. Exporters may even welcome a lower currency. The Socialists would do what they always do - blame speculators for their own mistakes.
In fact, even that may not happen, if the markets believe that the government is borrowing to spend wisely (on, say, infrastructure). The economic difficulty with the Labour Magic Money Tree proposals is not that they can't be financed without raising taxes. It's that they are spending on completely the wrong things to enhance the economy's productive capacity. Using the Magic Money Tree to finance tax cuts to business or well-directed infrastructure spending could be economically prudent. Nationalising the water industry for no obvious reason, and no doubt whatever else they want to spend the money on, won't be.
Let them money presses roll.
It's a naked, tagrgetted, attempt at disenfranchisement.
The strategic challenge to the US is now China not Russia hence their "Pacific Pivot". NATO's eurocentricity means it's going to become increasingly irrelevant to the US no matter who is President. Although Trump is particularly and trenchantly opposed to NATO and will miss no opportunity to weaken or undermine it.
Drug and alcohol abuse seem to be moving to an older age range here in Leicester. The spice zombies are mostly in their thirties and forties.
I think we need to do some deep thinking about the extent that we can rely on NATO outside the intelligence field and what we need to protect our own interests.
Now its possible that the balance within the economy is wrong - too much money being spent on imported consumer tat and foreign holidays (another thing at a record high) and not enough on business and infrastructure investment.
But the answer to that is to rebalance the economy into something more sustainable rather than going on another borrowing splurge.
Georgia only has a popation of 10 million.
This is rather symptomatic at the moment with issues - we just sort them; it's easy.
Northern Ireland - 11,042
Scotland - 10,651
London - 10,192
Wales - 10,076
North East - 9,680
North West - 9,429
West Midlands - 8,846
Yorkshire and The Humber - 8,810
South West - 8,549
East Midlands - 8,282
East - 8,155
South East - 8,111
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/country-and-regional-analysis-2017
Defence against what. Are Russian submarines likely to come flooding through the GIUK gap? If China, our Pacific forces have always been poor. Where would we base? Fremantle, Exmouth. Given the US is moving towards neutral power ex-Pacific what next. Which meat grinder will we send the army to next, and why.
There seems to be a virility attached to spending on guns which excites some.
He’s planned for it “just in case”
Brown messed around with pensions once, to his discredit. It is one reason why so many have invested in property, which has had unfortunate consequences for the young. If another Labour chancellor is going to mess around with pensions again, I for one am not going to let him do it with my pension. I have no intention of living in poverty in my old age after a lifetime of hard work and saving.
And what of people already receiving their pension? Will the funds behind them be seized?
It'd be bloody horrendous if the far left got into power here, but it's a credible possibility. Still staggering that Labour MPs didn't understand their own bloody leadership rules.
Purely anecdotally, quite a few of my Labour friends have invested heavily in all sorts of schemes introduced by the Tories to encourage enterprise and savings and reduce taxes. Their actions belie their words. A McDonnell chancellorship may force them to put their money where their mouths are - and I am not at all certain that all of them will be sanguine about what this will mean for them.
Tax Spending
North East 8,200 12,027 -3,827
North West 8,591 11,634 -3,043
Yorkshire and the Humber 8,583 11,178 -2,595
East Midlands 9,049 10,744 -1,695
West Midlands 8,492 11,089 -2,597
East of England 10,833 10,591 242
London 15,756 12,686 3,070
South East 12,249 10,582 1,667
South West 9,773 11,069 -1,296
England 10,699 11,297 -598
Wales 7,986 12,531 -4,545
Scotland 10,230 13,054 -2,824
Northern Ireland 8,581 14,018 -5,437
United Kingdom 10,471 11,579 -1,108
England is incredibly generous to the other countries, and London, the SE and East Anglia likewise to the other regions.
https://www.ft.com/content/d44b6384-c18d-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7
This incredible generosity requires some sense of common identity. The Conservatives have spent the last few years destroying any sense of affinity of Londoners for non-Londoners.
London has the lion's share of museums and art galleries, and a huge number of government jobs (for obvious reasons). It also has a huge amount of transport spending.
There are legitimate arguments for a disproportionate amount to spent on London. Population density means you get more bang for your buck with transport spending, and the capital obviously has to be the seat of many state jobs. Similarly high population coupled with good transport links means galleries and museums can be accessed by a significant number of people.
But, even given all that, there's still too much concentration there. The Royal Armouries (now based in Leeds) is fantastic. Osborne's Northern Powerhouse idea had some merit (I think it was overblown but strengthening Leeds-Manchester links could be a very good idea). Money's always seems to be found for London but always seems to go missing when the Leeds tram system rolls around.
This is also why proposals for carving England into pieces are so wretched and ill-considered. A London demagogue will get up and claim that London money should stay in London, they're exporting taxes elsewhere. A Yorkshire demagogue will get up and claim that spending per head is is far less than in rich London, and they want equality.
Both can back up their rabble-rousing words with statistical support. And both would happen if we let some political class with little understanding of or care for England slice it into pieces. If we institutionalise political division it'll only grow.
Not to mention that Wales was never carved up. Scotland was never segregated into Lowlands, Highlands, and Islands. And yet some think it's ok to carve up England.
Riddle me this: Are we really turning into a nation of abstainers? Or are people just getting more savvy about lying to the health authorities about their alcohol consumption?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1049948946280448000
Surely one can want taxation to be different (and detrimental to oneself) and at the same time to live in the real world and to take advantage of the situation as it is.
And that’s assuming that promise will be made again.
What the last election showed was not that people were prepared to pay higher taxes but that people voted for the party which promised them a free education and that they could keep their inheritances. It was the Tories who were being honest (to an extent) about social care and the other parties offering free goodies to all. Look at the wailing over increased NI contributions.
Am I cynical in thinking that such people won’t like the reality of any government that tells them the truth - if you want public goods you are going to have to pay no matter how unfair you might think it is and, yes, that means using granny’s house to pay for granny’s care etc - no matter what they say at dinner parties about being fine about paying more tax in the abstract?
Maybe.
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1049950165182935040
Ess
Aye
Interesting to know if there are any entirely coincidental demographic similarities in the 850k people purged.
Mr. Alistair, cheers.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake?CMP=twt_gu
A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged make a cake emblazoned with the message “Support Gay Marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it...
...“It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics,” Hale said in the judgment.
“But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.”
Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that ‘nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”
So I suppose people won't have to make cakes with 'Vote Labour' (for example) on them either....
I wonder what would happen if someone asked for a Wedding Cake for 'Leo & Colin'?
Has it ever been made known whether the man requesting the cake only went to Ashers because he knew they would have problems with it?
Mr. tpfkar, I agree.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/03/who-works-where-uk-public-sector
Our public sector is basically a welfare state that has an army. All the rest is small beer. And welfare spending is targeted at poorer areas, so the thriving areas of the country will always subsidise the rest. And that happens to be London and the SE.
Of course, welfare spending, while it alleviates the worst forms of poverty, also fosters dependency, which is why wealth divides are so persistent. There are no easy answers here.
I was the executor of the wills of my oldest friend’s parents. Jewish, escaped here from Germany, built up a successful business. They made some modest provision for their daughter. She is successful in her own right. But they chose not to use all the usual tax breaks because they felt that this country had given them a home, a life and that paying a large slug of tax on their deaths was their way of paying it back. Unusual but honourable.
If you believe in paying more tax - and make a political career out of ostentatiously saying so - then it is legitimate to ask why you would avail yourself of schemes designed to reduce the tax you pay, which means that others will have to pay more. It’s the gap between your words and the way some in public life thereby present themselves as holier than thou and their actions which grate.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the best for yourself and your family. But to be accused of being selfish for wanting to keep your money for yourself by others richer than you who do exactly the same thing but present themselves as morally superior because of their political leanings is what really grates.
There are certainly economic arguments in favour of mass immigration, but it has been disastrous for solidarity nationwide.
The US Colorado case that made it to the Supreme Court also narrowly sided with the baker - but largely because the Colorado authorities cocked it up, and they stressed that they were making no judgement on the provision of services to gay people.
Genuinely surprised by that public sector stat, but if its proportional then the absolute number can still be very high, just diluted by London's relatively enormous population.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/30/ethnic-minorities-uk-british-research
theyre claiming not surprisingly that it was public money well spent
The official City of Nottingham is arguably the most batshit bonkers local authority boundary in the country, it is ludicrously tightly drawn, with Forest's ground not even officially in the City, despite being only a mile or so from the city centre. The city boundary should be extended out to the Derbyshire border in the west, south through West Bridgford and north through Gedling and Hucknall. Should have been done years ago.
Greater Nottingham is a pretty big urban area – actually extends into Derbyshire with places like Ilkeston and Long Eaton part and parcel of it, nearer to Nottingham than they are to Derby. But annexing parts of Derbyshire might be a bridge too far for the bureaucrats!