This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
There are also those who after being unsuccessful in Poland move to western Europe thinking they'll earn big money and/or live in a more 'sophisticated' society but then discover that the same things which led to them being unsuccessful at home still make them unsuccessful in other countries plus with the added language and cultural difficulties.
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
Poland has had 3-5% annual GDP growth for the last few years and consecutive annual positive growth for more than the last 2 decades. Arguably the best economic performance of all Europe over that time
Doesn't look too lazy to me!
Its easy to speed up when you start from so far back and know the way to go.
At some point the returns start to diminish.
Rather off the point!
GDP growth in a good part of the A8, to the point of approaching Western European living standards is pretty good evidence that the locals are not lazy.
Indeed the cementing of these countries into the Economic structures and liberal capitalism of western Europe is one of the undeniable successes of the EU in recent decades. We should be proud of our role in helping free these peoples via the EU.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to orate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
Had such a rainbow coalition propped up Brown in 2010 and Cameron thus failed to take the Tories back into government, David Davis could have replaced him as Tory leader and Davis then won a Tory majority in 2015 rather than Cameron.
It was Clegg who ensured a Cameron Government
If you read the history of the formation of the coalition (lib dem version) then labour weren’t interested, they were too busy positioning to replace Brown
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
The problem with that is how do you treat unique assets.
For example, my foundation owns a unique and very special property in London. We have built our charitable programme around it. There’s no real way to value it - the book value and the rental income from it are relatively low. But to the right oligarch it could be worth a high 8 figure sum.
So do we value it at that - and pay high taxes which would suck away charitable funds - or keep it at the current book value and risk having someone take it away from us for a fraction of what it could be worth?
Far better to have a system where by its self-declared and publicly listed. It can be challenged by anyone - if the challenge is successful then:
- if the difference is less than 20% it’s just rerated - If the difference is greater than 20% then it is rerated and a 200% surcharge applied for that year
The person who challenged the valuation gets to keep 10% of the increase in tax (including the surcharge) as an incentive
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers -
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
I was using it in the colloquial sense of physical goods as opposed to intangibles.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers -
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
Best to seek a liberal unity government from all parties? Break apart the party system
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
So only an eight party coalition then.
About as stable as a drunk high-wiring over the Thames in a force nine gale !!
@Charles what is the definition of ‘manufacturing’? Do our universities not ‘manufacture’ knowledge, scientific advances, etc... Do our banks not ‘manufacture’ fantastic services that others want to buy?
Physical goods that need to be physically shipped to places...
Is shipping goods more worthwhile than shipping knowledge and/or services?
No but there is a strategic risk.
Let’s say that we were 100% dependent on Russia for all our steel imports and we ended up in a dispute with them.
The ability to stop selling us steel would be a powerful weapon
You can certainly offset the risk by diversifying your sources of supply, but there are also benefits to having a domestic skill base
Who is going to do all the valuations for “wealth” ?
Home inspectors ? Car mileage monitors ? Checking under floorboards for jewels and bullion ? It’s a nonsense.
The specific suggestion is to tax land ownership, which shouldn't be that mysterious. But generally tax is assessed by making people declare it.
I do quite like the idea of every home owner declaring the value of their property at the start of the financial year and being taxed accordingly. But should someone offer that value, then you have to sell.
It should work both ways to guard against people ramping values because they intend to sell next year; they can be forced either to sell or to buy the house next door. (This works better with commodities, because ounces of gold are more alike than houses are.)
Why not just tax the capital gain at point of sale, when there is actually some liquid money to capture?
This is one reason that Poland is soon going to zoom past Britain: they have an astonishing work ethic and are as ambitious as hell.
I don’t agree. What is the evidence of this? What is more likely is that all the lazy Poles are still in Poland. Those who travel thousands of miles away from home for work are more likely to be motivated.
Total rubbish and offensive to suggest that the British and the Irish are somehow inherently lazy.
There are also those who after being unsuccessful in Poland move to western Europe thinking they'll earn big money and/or live in a more 'sophisticated' society but then discover that the same things which led to them being unsuccessful at home still make them unsuccessful in other countries plus with the added language and cultural difficulties.
Similar to the old acronym FILTH - Failed In London Tried Hongkong.
Poland has had 3-5% annual GDP growth for the last few years and consecutive annual positive growth for more than the last 2 decades. Arguably the best economic performance of all Europe over that time
Doesn't look too lazy to me!
Its easy to speed up when you start from so far back and know the way to go.
At some point the returns start to diminish.
Rather off the point!
GDP growth in a good part of the A8, to the point of approaching Western European living standards is pretty good evidence that the locals are not lazy.
Indeed the cementing of these countries into the Economic structures and liberal capitalism of western Europe is one of the undeniable successes of the EU in recent decades. We should be proud of our role in helping free these peoples via the EU.
Did anyone say that the Poles were lazy ?
And I'm not sure that Poland's GDP per capita is approaching that of Western Europe:
The political effects (and, cynics would argue, why the GOP wants it there) are that it would reduce the apparent size of Democrat-leaning areas before seat boundaries are drawn.
This is interesting as it closely parallels what the 2010 government did here (some posters complained when I called it gerrymandering). Purge electoral rolls and make registration harder in order to reduce the apparent size of Labour-leaning towns and cities, then use it as the basis for redrawing boundaries. In order to make sure that every constituency is revisited and redrawn, reduce the number of seats to 600.
One irony is that collateral damage might have included ending Cameron and Osborne's political careers by disproportionately removing Remain-leaning voters before the Brexit referendum. A danger the government belatedly realised, organising a rushed registration campaign in the last days before voting.
Voting is a good thing and should be encouraged. By those who are entitled to vote. Accuracy of the register is important.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers -
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The country needed a 'strong and stable' (to coin a phrase) government at that time and this simply would not have provided it. Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
They have no fear of Corbyn; he's just nine stone of dandruff in a cardigan. The fear is of the incubi that form his coterie and the wider movement around him.
Yes - they fear a 'Corbyn government' is what I should have said.
I think he is a front man. Would not say puppet because I don't buy the idea that he is being fully controlled by any one faction.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers - as was a minority Tory government. Moreover, Tory numbers were only slightly lower than what they have currently - a C&S deal with the UUP/DUP would have been an option too even if still slightly short of a majority. I don't doubt that participating in Labour -led administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff will have alienated centre-right voters otherwise sympathetic to the LibDems. Their decision to enter a Westminster Tory dominated government damaged their standing with left of centre opinion massively - particularly in relation to Clegg's right wards swerve on macroeconomic policy which led him to accept austerity policies he had condemned during the 2010 campaign. Then there was the Tuition Fees fiasco - the acceptance of a Tory NHS reform not even included in the Tory manifesto - and the wicked attempt to introduce prohibitive fees to bring cases to Employment Tribunals.I suspect the wider electorate remains far more interested in the essence of these issues than Brexit per se, and that they continue to have the potential to cause great damage to the LibDems during an election campaign.
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
The 6 SNP MPs would certainly have supported Labour in preference to a Tory - led government - as would the 3 Plaid Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
So only an eight party coalition then.
About as stable as a drunk high-wiring over the Thames in a force nine gale !!
Israel seems to manage it - as have various European countries.
A Rainbow coalition was possible on the 2010 numbers -
I think that you're being 'arithmetically challenged' in that assertion.
"Although the actual figure for an overall majority is 326, in practice it is 323 because the five Sinn Fein MPs will not take up their seats. Following the election, Labour, with 258 MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, with 57 MPs, have 315 MPs between them. "
Add in the SNP's 6 seats? (Labour's nemesis in Scotland) - not really on. But the country wanted rid of Labour and Brown at that point, so a rainbow coalition wouldn't even have been politically acceptable even if it had been numerically possible.
Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
It almost certainly would have been better for the LD 2015 vote. It probably would have been worse off for the country though. The LD should be commended for taking the responsible choice (and proud of what they did achieve).
Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
It almost would certainly have been better for the LD 2015 vote. It probably would have been worse off for the country though. The LD should be commended for taking the responsible choice (and proud of what they did achieve).
Proud of breaking their pledges on Tuition fees - acquiesing in macroeconomic policies which they had strongly opposed at the 2010 election - swallowing Tory NHS plans which had no mandate from the electorate at all - and indeed being happy to introduce fees for Employment Tribunals at levels one would much more associate with the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
It almost would certainly have been better for the LD 2015 vote. It probably would have been worse off for the country though. The LD should be commended for taking the responsible choice (and proud of what they did achieve).
Proud of breaking their pledges on Tuition fees - acquiesing in macroeconomic policies which they had strongly opposed at the 2010 election - swallowing Tory NHS plans which had no mandate from the electorate at all - and indeed being happy to introduce fees for Employment Tribunals at levels one would much more associate with the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
I'm surprised that people don't comment on the change in the LibDems from opposing Middle Eastern warmongering when in opposition to supporting it when they were in government.
The parent of a GP has written to the Telegraph to say their GP daughter is exhausted working 11-hour days so will scale back to three days a week.
The effect is rather spoiled by adding she has managed only two holidays this year.
11 hour days are unsustainable and holidays are a good thing.
I’ve done 11+ hours a day for 20 years (plus weekend work although less of that now)
It’s hard, but sustainable
If you are on an investment bankers' salary fine, you can afford domestic help, nannies etc. Even GPs earn 6 figures now if partners.
On an average salary it is much less sustainable and 9 to 5 or close to it fairer
GP partners tend to work much shorter hours.
My father worked 8 -7 regularly plus 1 in 3 weekends (including Saturday morning surgeries) and on call nights for home visits around 3 in 14. I don’t know if any of those happen any longer but I’m certain that current GPs would claim that they work equally hard, just in different ways.
Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
As well as the instability of such an unlikely government, it simply would not have been credible after the Conservatives had gained nearly 100 seats, and Labour had lost so many. It would rightly have been seen as propping up the loser.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
It almost would certainly have been better for the LD 2015 vote. It probably would have been worse off for the country though. The LD should be commended for taking the responsible choice (and proud of what they did achieve).
Proud of breaking their pledges on Tuition fees - acquiesing in macroeconomic policies which they had strongly opposed at the 2010 election - swallowing Tory NHS plans which had no mandate from the electorate at all - and indeed being happy to introduce fees for Employment Tribunals at levels one would much more associate with the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Bull. Coalition economic n policy was broadly inline with lib dem deficit reduction plans
Cymru, 3 SDLP, 1 Green and - probably - Lady Hermon. That would have been a potential of 329 MPs - an effective majority of 12.Moreover, had such a government taken office it is far from clear that the DUP/UUP would have actively opposed it.
I omitted the Alliance MP - Naomi Long - who also would have been a likely supporter - so total would likely have been 330 - majority of 14.
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
It is not necessary to be Hard Left to present strong criticisms of LibDem participation in that Tory-led government and their acquiescence in a Right-wing policy agenda. Many LibDems were - and remain - highly critical. I suggest it was a mistake that a group of dissenting LibDem MPs did not opt to sit on the Opposition benches as Independent - or Anti-Coalition - Libdems.Had the likes of Kennedy, Farron, Hughes, Adrian Sanders,Andrew George, Pugh et al acted in that way, I suspect that the 2015 election would have turned out better for them.
It almost would certainly have been better for the LD 2015 vote. It probably would have been worse off for the country though. The LD should be commended for taking the responsible choice (and proud of what they did achieve).
Proud of breaking their pledges on Tuition fees - acquiesing in macroeconomic policies which they had strongly opposed at the 2010 election - swallowing Tory NHS plans which had no mandate from the electorate at all - and indeed being happy to introduce fees for Employment Tribunals at levels one would much more associate with the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party.
Proud of what they did achieve. Not what they didnt. If the country expects a party to deliver most of its manifesto, give it a clear outright majority. Otherwise we get coalitions, where no party, and certainly not the junior partners, can deliver their manifesto.
The parent of a GP has written to the Telegraph to say their GP daughter is exhausted working 11-hour days so will scale back to three days a week.
The effect is rather spoiled by adding she has managed only two holidays this year.
11 hour days are unsustainable and holidays are a good thing.
I’ve done 11+ hours a day for 20 years (plus weekend work although less of that now)
It’s hard, but sustainable
If you are on an investment bankers' salary fine, you can afford domestic help, nannies etc. Even GPs earn 6 figures now if partners.
On an average salary it is much less sustainable and 9 to 5 or close to it fairer
GP partners tend to work much shorter hours.
My father worked 8 -7 regularly plus 1 in 3 weekends (including Saturday morning surgeries) and on call nights for home visits around 3 in 14. I don’t know if any of those happen any longer but I’m certain that current GPs would claim that they work equally hard, just in different ways.
Times have changed. And I said tend to; no doubt there is considerable variation in practice, but one sees a great deal of locums these days....
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
Wealth taxes - taxes on assets - are a sign of desperation. Taxes on income are easy, taxes on consumption less so, but going after wealth is a sign that the cupboard is bare. The only thing after that is confiscation of property. And for what? Government scope keeps expanding - can anyone point out when they have stopped doing anything? - and thus expenditure increases. Yes we had Austerity - but spending (and taxes) kept going up. The top 5% of earners will pay more than half of income tax this year, up from 25% in 1980. Do you really think that this can and will continue? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.
Quite. Hopefully we’ll see Liz Truss as Chancellor next month.
One small error though, public spending increased every year from 2010 to 2015 - that isn’t Austerity by any stretch, rather a rebalancing of spending in favour of debt interest over other departments.
YouGov are helping covering all the bases so everyone is happy...
People who don't like Corbyn can just pay attention to the regular YouGov polls and celebrate Labour being in 4th and doomed, the people who like Corbyn can just pay attention to other polls and celebrate Labour being in 1st and well positioned for the next election.
It doesn't help in terms of arguments though, especially if you have people arguing 'dishonestly' or maybe from genuine ignorance...
Where are you on this? Surely you can see Labour have a teensy weensy problem. To win power from opposition you have to be 10-20 points clear.
Labour might well be the largest party, and able to get confidence and supply from Lib Dems and SNP, but they are nowhere near an overall majority.
On such an arrangement, the Liberal Democrats would be likely to quickly lose the soft Conservative votes they'd just won over in the South.
An exact inversion of what happened to them during the coalition years.
If the LibDems are pushing Labour toward killing off Brexit, those Tory remainers wont be unhappy.
They will be unhappy with the economic and tax policies such a Government might pursue as well as the pet hobby horses of the Left.
I'm sure we've discussed it before but Labour's policy of a land tax to replace Council tax is a good starting point for creating the wealth taxes we need to replace the increasing demands that will need to be placed on consumption and income taxes....
Wealth taxes - taxes on assets - are a sign of desperation. Taxes on income are easy, taxes on consumption less so, but going after wealth is a sign that the cupboard is bare. The only thing after that is confiscation of property. And for what? Government scope keeps expanding - can anyone point out when they have stopped doing anything? - and thus expenditure increases. Yes we had Austerity - but spending (and taxes) kept going up. The top 5% of earners will pay more than half of income tax this year, up from 25% in 1980. Do you really think that this can and will continue? We cannot tax our way to prosperity.
Quite. Hopefully we’ll see Liz Truss as Chancellor next month.
One small error though, public spending increased every year from 2010 to 2015 - that isn’t Austerity by any stretch, rather a rebalancing of spending in favour of debt interest over other departments.
Direct taxation was higher in the 1945 - 1979 period - as was the rate of economic growth.
Comments
GDP growth in a good part of the A8, to the point of approaching Western European living standards is pretty good evidence that the locals are not lazy.
Indeed the cementing of these countries into the Economic structures and liberal capitalism of western Europe is one of the undeniable successes of the EU in recent decades. We should be proud of our role in helping free these peoples via the EU.
For example, my foundation owns a unique and very special property in London. We have built our charitable programme around it. There’s no real way to value it - the book value and the rental income from it are relatively low. But to the right oligarch it could be worth a high 8 figure sum.
So do we value it at that - and pay high taxes which would suck away charitable funds - or keep it at the current book value and risk having someone take it away from us for a fraction of what it could be worth?
Far better to have a system where by its self-declared and publicly listed. It can be challenged by anyone - if the challenge is successful then:
- if the difference is less than 20% it’s just rerated
- If the difference is greater than 20% then it is rerated and a 200% surcharge applied for that year
The person who challenged the valuation gets to keep 10% of the increase in tax (including the surcharge) as an incentive
It is highly likely that Labour will not have a majority in the next parliament and will need other parties to form a government. As such it would be wise to rein in the Hard Left attacks on the only parties that could enable a Labour government. Thinking about what policies are Labour's red lines would also be in order.
About as stable as a drunk high-wiring over the Thames in a force nine gale !!
Let’s say that we were 100% dependent on Russia for all our steel imports and we ended up in a dispute with them.
The ability to stop selling us steel would be a powerful weapon
You can certainly offset the risk by diversifying your sources of supply, but there are also benefits to having a domestic skill base
And I'm not sure that Poland's GDP per capita is approaching that of Western Europe:
https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/gdp-per-capita
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/gdp-per-capita
https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/gdp-per-capita
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-per-capita
I think he is a front man. Would not say puppet because I don't buy the idea that he is being fully controlled by any one faction.
And I said tend to; no doubt there is considerable variation in practice, but one sees a great deal of locums these days....
One small error though, public spending increased every year from 2010 to 2015 - that isn’t Austerity by any stretch, rather a rebalancing of spending in favour of debt interest over other departments.