Get real. The top 1% of taxpayers allow us to fund the NHS.
Personally, I'd have twice as many of them - and a far better NHS.
Being the money launderers of the world is not the only way to fund the government sector. It is bad for our long-term international reputation. It is bad for governance when a single sector can call the regulatory tune of an entire society. And it is probably bad for capitalism: the financial sector sucks in so many resources (including human) that it undermines efficient allocation, and creates huge systemic risks.
The UK urgently needs definancialisation, although clearly it would be better to pursue it as a long-term strategy than to unleash the cretinous chaos of Tory Brexit or Milne-Murray-Corbynism. It's one of a number of structural issues (residential property as a store of value, lack of regional government, adversarial politics, adversarial industrial relations, etc.) that have been ducked by government after government.
But apparently you'd rather be a white-collar gangster state with a few crumbs for the 65 million servants.
"white-collar gangster state"....FFS. How rattled are you? Just because you have no answer to the charge that Labour will cause massive loss of tax from highly mobile labour/wealth that currently chooses to live in the UK.
The argument is pretty simple; whilst Tories may get more of the vote at a GE it has the potential to be spread somewhat more equally across the country, whereas the Lab / LD votes are individually localised. So if Tories do well, it is quite well everywhere. Where LDs and Lab do well they are doing very well, and where they're doing badly they're doing very badly AND these map in such a way that where Lab do very badly LDs are doing very well and visa versa.
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
ERG have said they will support it if the DUP support it. DUP have said they'll support it.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seats have said they'll vote for it if the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
We'll chalk you down as a Laffer-curve denier then
The Latter curve shows quite clearly the higher you raise tax the lower the revenues you get past a certain point and a 63% top rate is well past that point
Ah great... I take it you have the official proven coordinates for the Laffer curve then. I've been looking for that for some time.
What I haven't seen mentioned in this tax rate discussion is imo the worst part of our tax system; employers' NI.
In order to "pay" someone £50,000pa, an employer actually has to pay (if my calcs are correct .. imcac?) £56,623
On that £50,000 the employee has to pay £4,964 in NI (12% on the £41,368 over £8,632), and £10,000 income tax (£0 on the first £12,500, 20% on the middle £25,000, and 40% on the top £12,500, so 20% overall).
This leaves the employee with £35,036, at a cost to their employer of £56,623.
£21,587 tax is paid on the £56,623, so a real rate of 38%.
Back at Westminster, the latest bone of contention centres around the fact that the new short proroguing of parliament will mean that there is no PMQs next week, in addition to the PM missing PMQs this week as he would normally have done in the period of the Conservative conference.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
ERG have said they will support it if the DUP support it. DUP have said they'll support it.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seasts have said they'll vote for it of the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
I do think it will be difficult to get him out. Whether impeached, pronounced of unsound mind (the 25th), or beaten at the ballot box, it will not be enough. There will need to be an intervention. My feeling is that it will involve an injection and then transportation to a secure suite in Trump Tower.
The argument is pretty simple; whilst Tories may get more of the vote at a GE it has the potential to be spread somewhat more equally across the country, whereas the Lab / LD votes are individually localised. So if Tories do well, it is quite well everywhere. Where LDs and Lab do well they are doing very well, and where they're doing badly they're doing very badly AND these map in such a way that where Lab do very badly LDs are doing very well and visa versa.
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
It will be true in some places, but not in others, and I think it's really hard to work out the split between the two given the change in national support.
Back at Westminster, the latest bone of contention centres around the fact that the new short proroguing of parliament will mean that there is no PMQs next week, in addition to the PM missing PMQs this week as he would normally have done in the period of the Conservative conference.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
It truly does seem to be a Dead Parliament.
Why not Prorogue on Thursday 10th and return on the 14th?
The ERG have already said that they will back this deal if the EU agree, plus Boris can and will remove the whip from and deselect anyone who votes down the deal.
The ERG will always say they'll back any deal which they are confident the EU won't (as we saw with the Brady amendment). It's obvious why: it's perfectly safe from their point of view, and it allows them to claim they are being 'reasonable'. It is naive in the extreme to assume that this fictitious support would survive if it looked as though the EU might accept any such deal. Of course, there's no risk of that in respect of the current Boris proposal.
As a matter of tactics on the EU side, if I were them I'd make encouraging noises (as they are) but also point out the obvious truth that it would need far more than the remaining couple of weeks to work anything based on these 'bold new proposals' into an agreement and get it ratified by the Council and by the EU parliament. So if Boris is serious, he needs to concede that his do-or-die date is nonsense.
Back at Westminster, the latest bone of contention centres around the fact that the new short proroguing of parliament will mean that there is no PMQs next week, in addition to the PM missing PMQs this week as he would normally have done in the period of the Conservative conference.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
It is the UK talking to itself. Now of course talking to itself and getting some kind of agreement is no small thing and, as @GIN1138 has listed above, that's what it looks like. But it's a bit like me and my mate deciding that we're going to turn out for Arsenal this Sunday against Bournemouth*. We haven't yet squared it away with Unai Emery and he might have something to say about it.
*yes I know me and my mate turning out for Arsenal at the moment would increase their winning chances significantly.
Note that most statistics are based on the top 1% of income tax payers, not top 1% of the population. As around 43% of people do not pay income tax, this makes quite a difference.
To be in the top 1% of income tax payers in the UK (i.e. to be among the 310,000 individuals with the highest income), a taxable income of at least £160,000 is required. £236,000 is required to be in the top 0.5% and nearly £650,000 to be in the top 0.1%. 43% of adults pay no income tax and to be in the top 1% of all adults (or the top 540,000 people), a pre-tax income of at least £120,000 is required.
The top 1% of income tax payers are disproportionately male, middle-aged and London-based. A man aged 45–54 in London could be in the top 1% nationally while still needing a further £550,000 to be in the top 1% for his gender, age and region.
You can also be sitting on millions in cash and not have a job, so not liable for income tax.
But, if they did, they’d be earning sufficient interest to pay higher rate tax on it.
So when candidates drop out of US election race, what happens to the big pots of money they raised?
If they get to keep it will ever have to do a days work again. I might run myself
They can use it for future campaigns at any level or donate it to other candidates or generic campaigns like each party’s national congressional campaign funds.. They’re not supposed to use campaign funds on personal expenditure although it’s pretty routine for pols of both parties, usually at local or state level, to get caught doing so. Usually they get away with having to pay the mis-used money back.
Back at Westminster, the latest bone of contention centres around the fact that the new short proroguing of parliament will mean that there is no PMQs next week, in addition to the PM missing PMQs this week as he would normally have done in the period of the Conservative conference.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
It truly does seem to be a Dead Parliament.
I think it will mean Johnson does one PMQ in 3 months? Is he frit?
A short prorogation should be allowed, of course, but actions speak louder than words. The PM is a coward and not a good debater, he may be inspiritional to some in short bursts but he wont be an asset in a long GE campaign.
It is the UK talking to itself. Now of course talking to itself and getting some kind of agreement is no small thing and, as @GIN1138 has listed above, that's what it looks like. But it's a bit like me and my mate deciding that we're going to turn out for Arsenal this Sunday against Bournemouth*. We haven't yet squared it away with Unai Emery and he might have something to say about it.
*yes I know me and my mate turning out for Arsenal at the moment would increase their winning chances significantly.
... in which case Bournemouth would object, since you are not registered Arsenal players.
(Not sure if this analogy can run much further tbh )
I struggle to understand the mentality of people who decide where to live based on minimising their tax bill. The rich should be grateful that they have the opportunity to contribute more to their country and their community as a result of their material good fortune rather than begrudge it. Personally I would gladly pay more in tax in order to have better functioning public services and a more adequate social safety net.
You aren't alone in that view. It's quite a cultural thing. Lots of people in Scandinavia are happy with their income tax rates and, indeed, happy in general. Someone posted a good video yesterday about the excesses of liberalism, which was challenging to me as a liberal but gave me a few anchor points as to why that makes sense. This idea that maximising personal income or even maximising the efficiency of a tax system are the holiest of outcomes is highly suspect. It may be a dominant narrative of our culture, but it really doesn't transpose to all human cultures. It's just the grinding self-assured certainty of the orthodoxy that is baffling to me. Too many people on here have quite certain views and have clearly never stopped to examine them or notice that there are people who disagree and who are also quite rational about it. Those same people are fond of -- rightly -- pointing out the cult like nature of Corbyn supporters, without actually noticing that they are in exactly the same kind of situation. Bizarre.
it isn't that surprising. Human affairs are full of contradictions like this.
The argument is pretty simple; whilst Tories may get more of the vote at a GE it has the potential to be spread somewhat more equally across the country, whereas the Lab / LD votes are individually localised. So if Tories do well, it is quite well everywhere. Where LDs and Lab do well they are doing very well, and where they're doing badly they're doing very badly AND these map in such a way that where Lab do very badly LDs are doing very well and visa versa.
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
It will be true in some places, but not in others, and I think it's really hard to work out the split between the two given the change in national support.
Yeah, the vote shares atm just make modelling really difficult. We need some constituency polling...
What I haven't seen mentioned in this tax rate discussion is imo the worst part of our tax system; employers' NI.
In order to "pay" someone £50,000pa, an employer actually has to pay (if my calcs are correct .. imcac?) £56,623
On that £50,000 the employee has to pay £4,964 in NI (12% on the £41,368 over £8,632), and £10,000 income tax (£0 on the first £12,500, 20% on the middle £25,000, and 40% on the top £12,500, so 20% overall).
This leaves the employee with £35,036, at a cost to their employer of £56,623.
£21,587 tax is paid on the £56,623, so a real rate of 38%.
Yes, the true marginal tax rates are very high. Of course businessmen are very aware of this and will consider the true marginal rate including employer's NI when considering options.
The most urgent reform, though, is to get rid of the utterly absurd cliff-edges at various points in the tax system, which heavily distort decision-making. The best proposal I've seen was the one from a left-wing thinktank which proposed a graded tax rate, which increases slowly but smoothly with income.
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
ERG have said they will support it if the DUP support it. DUP have said they'll support it.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seats have said they'll vote for it if the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
I hope so!
It is a very sensible compromise and a marked democratic improvement on May's deal. It is also miles better for all parties involved than No Deal.
The fact they've not rejected it out of hand like they did with Chequers and other proposals is quite reassuring.
Johnson winning the arguement this morning imo. I want to see us leave with a Deal.
Absolutely, this is a chance to put all this Parliamentary mess behind us.
Prior to this being published there was a lot of talk in the media that the EU had no incentive to compromise as they had no reason to believe any compromise would get through Parliament. There are enough declared MPs now to get this through Parliament if the EU agrees so the ball really is in their court. Accept this and we are done, they can move on without us but with our 39 billion.
Isn't is more the case that US is UKs closest ally (I actually don't think it's true but that's the spin) while the Presidents and Prime Ministers themselves come and go the friendship between the two nations endures?
I would say Australia, New Zealand and Canada are closer UK allies than the US and Israel and Australia are closer US allies than the UK
What I haven't seen mentioned in this tax rate discussion is imo the worst part of our tax system; employers' NI.
In order to "pay" someone £50,000pa, an employer actually has to pay (if my calcs are correct .. imcac?) £56,623
On that £50,000 the employee has to pay £4,964 in NI (12% on the £41,368 over £8,632), and £10,000 income tax (£0 on the first £12,500, 20% on the middle £25,000, and 40% on the top £12,500, so 20% overall).
This leaves the employee with £35,036, at a cost to their employer of £56,623.
£21,587 tax is paid on the £56,623, so a real rate of 38%.
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Has anyone on this site said they oppose this deal? Especially anyone OK with leaving, whether a leaver or remainer who respects democracy [not someone who thinks we must remain at all costs]
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
ERG have said they will support it if the DUP support it. DUP have said they'll support it.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seats have said they'll vote for it if the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
I hope so!
It is a very sensible compromise and a marked democratic improvement on May's deal. It is also miles better for all parties involved than No Deal.
The fact they've not rejected it out of hand like they did with Chequers and other proposals is quite reassuring.
Couple more straws in the wind pointing to a deal
1. Juncker leaves on 31st October. I doubt they want all this dragging on into the first months of Ursula's reign.
2. I doubt they want Farage and the Brexit Party hanging around like a bad smell and causing trouble in the new Parliament.
Back at Westminster, the latest bone of contention centres around the fact that the new short proroguing of parliament will mean that there is no PMQs next week, in addition to the PM missing PMQs this week as he would normally have done in the period of the Conservative conference.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
It truly does seem to be a Dead Parliament.
I mean, the Supreme Court does a lot more than that. It clearly places the power to dissolve and recess parliament for long periods of time in the hand of parliament, not the executive. The executive can prorogue parliament for short periods of time, or longer if they provide reasons the courts find reasonable.
People say parliament is dead, but it is only because the executive is trying to kill it. I would argue that parliament is anything but dead, it just disagrees with the MINORITY executive on the issue of leaving the Eu. Is that enough reason to call an election? Maybe, but also maybe not. Parliament holds all the cards, and as our representatives, democratically elected by the populace, that is only correct.
The executive should have tried, once they lost their majority (and indeed before), to work WITH parliament on this issue to create unity and consensus, rather than AGAINST parliament, making the issue partisan and divisive. Had May offered a hand to opposition parties when it was clear she didn't have the right flank of her party on board, let alone the opposition, she could have governed on everything but Brexit with a majority in parliament.
She didn't do that. Neither is Johnson. That is a failure of theirs, not parliaments.
For balance, 27% is correct, but it doesnt pay for the NHS. And tax system is progressive, if not progressive enough.
My Laffer curve (laminated) says the goldilocks is 63% top rate income tax on earnings over £150k. This maximizes the take and at the same time reduces the gini. But in order to optimize, I think we need to take a good hard look at the taxation of WEALTH.
A 63% top income tax rate would be the highest in the world, would lead to a mass exodus of high earners and talent abroad and thus destroy the economy and lead to an even lower tax take, see the brain drain of the late 1970s pre Thatcher
What is the upper rate in France now? They did a hike (now reversed?) which saw a movement of talent under Hollande, I seem to recall.
While you have free movement you can't have a nation with a successful significantly higher tax rate than others in the area.
Under Macron the top income tax rate in France is now 45%, the same as the UK (albeit with a 4% extra rate for incomes over €500 million).
Under Hollande many of the Paris rich fled to London
Define "many"
400 000 French citizens were living in London in the Hollande years
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
They've said they wouldn't move and perhaps they won't. But movement here would clearly unlock the impasse. The reality is it is up to Ireland methinks - if Ireland moves then the EU will follow.
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Both sides weren't happy though, that was the issue. Even when the deal was signed it was overwhelmingly crystal clear it would never get through Parliament, the DUP, the ERG, the opposition had all made their opposition clear beforehand.
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
Has anyone on this site said they oppose this deal? Especially anyone OK with leaving, whether a leaver or remainer who respects democracy [not someone who thinks we must remain at all costs]
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
I think it would be very dangerous, as proposed, in Northern Ireland as it introduces border checks of some kind between NI and ROI given the different customs regimes. As the bloke on the radio said this morning (could have been Chief Constable of PSNI, could have been the local greengrocer, I didn't catch it), at-premises checks are all very well to ensure that those who are compliant are compliant. The purpose of border checks are to catch those who are not compliant. And those checks must be done at or close to the b*rd*r.
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
Well it could have happened if it wasn't for Gina Millar.
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
They've said they wouldn't move and perhaps they won't. But movement here would clearly unlock the impasse. The reality is it is up to Ireland methinks - if Ireland moves then the EU will follow.
As noted to Philip, the sticking point I imagine will (continue to) be those pesky border checks. Different customs regimes will necessarily mean checks of some kind or another and KAPOW: we're back to where we started.
What I haven't seen mentioned in this tax rate discussion is imo the worst part of our tax system; employers' NI.
In order to "pay" someone £50,000pa, an employer actually has to pay (if my calcs are correct .. imcac?) £56,623
On that £50,000 the employee has to pay £4,964 in NI (12% on the £41,368 over £8,632), and £10,000 income tax (£0 on the first £12,500, 20% on the middle £25,000, and 40% on the top £12,500, so 20% overall).
This leaves the employee with £35,036, at a cost to their employer of £56,623.
£21,587 tax is paid on the £56,623, so a real rate of 38%.
People say parliament is dead, but it is only because the executive is trying to kill it. I would argue that parliament is anything but dead, it just disagrees with the MINORITY executive on the issue of leaving the Eu. Is that enough reason to call an election? Maybe, but also maybe not. Parliament holds all the cards, and as our representatives, democratically elected by the populace, that is only correct.
The executive should have tried, once they lost their majority (and indeed before), to work WITH parliament on this issue to create unity and consensus, rather than AGAINST parliament, making the issue partisan and divisive. Had May offered a hand to opposition parties when it was clear she didn't have the right flank of her party on board, let alone the opposition, she could have governed on everything but Brexit with a majority in parliament.
She didn't do that. Neither is Johnson. That is a failure of theirs, not parliaments.
You might have a point if Corbyn had shown any intention to be anything other than partisan and divisive. May lost the last of her political capital inviting him in. He spurned that advance.
Also, the legislature took control - and has been shown to be shit at being the executive.
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Both sides weren't happy though, that was the issue. Even when the deal was signed it was overwhelmingly crystal clear it would never get through Parliament, the DUP, the ERG, the opposition had all made their opposition clear beforehand.
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
How do you propose to negotiate with someone who you know is only transiently in the post? You must negotiate in good faith with the person in front of you which I believe the EU did. I mean that is assuming you believe the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom holds some degree of authority.
Has anyone on this site said they oppose this deal? Especially anyone OK with leaving, whether a leaver or remainer who respects democracy [not someone who thinks we must remain at all costs]
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
I don't know how you'd categorise me, but I'd oppose giving the DUP a veto and I'd oppose erecting a customs border that would do so much damage to the Irish economy (north and south of the border on the island of Ireland).
"white-collar gangster state"....FFS. How rattled are you? Just because you have no answer to the charge that Labour will cause massive loss of tax from highly mobile labour/wealth that currently chooses to live in the UK.
If the London financial sector's USP is that our systems of allocation are the most efficient and benefit other countries that make use of them, while English law is particularly tried and trusted for financial contracts, then all well and good, and that business is likely to remain.
If its USP is that we ask no questions and you can embezzle your country (including our own) to your heart's delight while we manage your assets for you, then we might be better off without that business in the long term.
Does the financial sector suck resources out of the real sector in advanced economies? There is increasing evidence of this. Does the reliance on London finance have massive detrimental knock-on effects for the rest of the UK and its economy? Yeah, it does. Am I rattled? No-one I vote for ever wins, and nothing I want to happen ever happens, so there is no reason I should be particularly rattled right now.
As for the "charge", you're probably correct: there would be some flight after a Corbyn victory. But this is unlikely to be tested, no matter how much I don't want him to win.
Good point, the irony is all the bigging up both of tone and opposing no deal by the opposition in the last few weeks has kind of fed into helping Boris today - he can be the calm statesman seeking a deal, while any negative tone or rejecting a deal goes against what they've been saying.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Both sides weren't happy though, that was the issue. Even when the deal was signed it was overwhelmingly crystal clear it would never get through Parliament, the DUP, the ERG, the opposition had all made their opposition clear beforehand.
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
How do you propose to negotiate with someone who you know is only transiently in the post? You must negotiate in good faith with the person in front of you which I believe the EU did. I mean that is assuming you believe the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom holds some degree of authority.
I propose you negotiate to seek a deal that can get through their Parliament and in particular I said all along the DUP as the elected representatives of the unionist community and a part of the government's majority in Parliament should have been involved with negotiating the Irish-border solution.
In all the excitement last night, counting up the number of Labour MPs following Boris into lobby to deliver his brexit, did we miss the fact all of them were qualifying their support “only if EU agree” “only if extension bypassed and no deal certain” ?
There can be no deal if the EU do not agree. But if the EU do agree there can be no deal because the ERG will not agree. Labour MPs can say what they like. They know there will never be a meaningful vote.
ERG have said they will support it if the DUP support it. DUP have said they'll support it.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seats have said they'll vote for it if the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
I hope so!
It is a very sensible compromise and a marked democratic improvement on May's deal. It is also miles better for all parties involved than No Deal.
The fact they've not rejected it out of hand like they did with Chequers and other proposals is quite reassuring.
Couple more straws in the wind pointing to a deal
1. Juncker leaves on 31st October. I doubt they want all this dragging on into the first months of Ursula's reign.
2. I doubt they want Farage and the Brexit Party hanging around like a bad smell and causing trouble in the new Parliament.
I've been pointing out for ages that the new regime won't want to inherit a Brexit shitshow. Get it done, Juncker. Whatever it takes.....
They are not interested in compromise. Just blaming the other side.
Are you talking about Corbyn, Johnson, Swinson or the EU here ?
The EU I think has played a straight bat. They spent some time negotiating with the UK and reached an agreement which both sides were happy with.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Both sides weren't happy though, that was the issue. Even when the deal was signed it was overwhelmingly crystal clear it would never get through Parliament, the DUP, the ERG, the opposition had all made their opposition clear beforehand.
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
How do you propose to negotiate with someone who you know is only transiently in the post? You must negotiate in good faith with the person in front of you which I believe the EU did. I mean that is assuming you believe the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom holds some degree of authority.
Unfortunately the EU from the start has had a mindset of squeezing the UK. Look at Juncker saying Northern Ireland would be the price of Brexit, or Barnier saying his goal was a deal so bad the UK would be forced back into the EU, or Barnier's aides laughing about us being a colony. It was a stupid mindset and ignored the fact you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Good point, the irony is all the bigging up both of tone and opposing no deal by the opposition in the last few weeks has kind of fed into helping Boris today - he can be the calm statesman seeking a deal, while any negative tone or rejecting a deal goes against what they've been saying.
True. Didnt rate Jezzas contribution today.
If EU accepts this proposal the Commons needs to pass it.
Hope Kinnock Nandy et al vote for it.
Jesters tone and style is important hope he keeps up the last 45 mins.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
People say parliament is dead, but it is only because the executive is trying to kill it. I would argue that parliament is anything but dead, it just disagrees with the MINORITY executive on the issue of leaving the Eu. Is that enough reason to call an election? Maybe, but also maybe not. Parliament holds all the cards, and as our representatives, democratically elected by the populace, that is only correct.
The executive should have tried, once they lost their majority (and indeed before), to work WITH parliament on this issue to create unity and consensus, rather than AGAINST parliament, making the issue partisan and divisive. Had May offered a hand to opposition parties when it was clear she didn't have the right flank of her party on board, let alone the opposition, she could have governed on everything but Brexit with a majority in parliament.
She didn't do that. Neither is Johnson. That is a failure of theirs, not parliaments.
You might have a point if Corbyn had shown any intention to be anything other than partisan and divisive. May lost the last of her political capital inviting him in. He spurned that advance.
Also, the legislature took control - and has been shown to be shit at being the executive.
Also, the legislature is 75% remain/revoke and thus significantly out of synch with the referendum result and their own manifesto commitments.
This has created massive tension, roadblocks and the sense Parliament is dead as it can’t or more accurately, won’t, resolve the issue.
The argument is pretty simple; whilst Tories may get more of the vote at a GE it has the potential to be spread somewhat more equally across the country, whereas the Lab / LD votes are individually localised. So if Tories do well, it is quite well everywhere. Where LDs and Lab do well they are doing very well, and where they're doing badly they're doing very badly AND these map in such a way that where Lab do very badly LDs are doing very well and visa versa.
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
In a previous post I characterised this as the @Casino_Royale model (he was I think the first person to point this out). Con have most votes, but because it's homogeneous across GB they come second everywhere to numerically inferior but more concentrated forces. So we have
* The @Casino_Royale model: Con lion brought down by Lab/Lib/SNP/PC hyenas * The @HYUFD model: 1983 redux, Con landslide
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
That's not something being progressed by the opposition to be fair.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
No it wouldn’t have it. It was binned in the proroguation.
Has anyone on this site said they oppose this deal? Especially anyone OK with leaving, whether a leaver or remainer who respects democracy [not someone who thinks we must remain at all costs]
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
My view is we should leave with virtually any deal and it meets that threshold. It seems a bit worse than Mays deal imo. Not sure what would have to be in the deal for me to reject it given the realistic if unlikely alternative possibility of no deal.
The argument is pretty simple; whilst Tories may get more of the vote at a GE it has the potential to be spread somewhat more equally across the country, whereas the Lab / LD votes are individually localised. So if Tories do well, it is quite well everywhere. Where LDs and Lab do well they are doing very well, and where they're doing badly they're doing very badly AND these map in such a way that where Lab do very badly LDs are doing very well and visa versa.
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
This is a point I have made several times here before, but it should be presaged with an IF. It does rely upon the LibDem upsurge being focused in the southern Home Counties and the south west, where it would be more effective, and Labour’s vote remaining resilient (and we’re talking more remainers than leavers here) in its held seats further north. My feeling is that the former is more likely than the latter right now.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
No it wouldn’t have it. It was binned in the proroguation.
It would have been introduced in the next session since it hadn't been progressed.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
No it wouldn’t have it. It was binned in the proroguation.
It's expedited the passage of it but substantively it would have been early legislation passed in the new session.
If the London financial sector's USP is that our systems of allocation are the most efficient and benefit other countries that make use of them, while English law is particularly tried and trusted for financial contracts, then all well and good, and that business is likely to remain.
If its USP is that we ask no questions and you can embezzle your country (including our own) to your heart's delight while we manage your assets for you, then we might be better off without that business in the long term.
Does the financial sector suck resources out of the real sector in advanced economies? There is increasing evidence of this. Does the reliance on London finance have massive detrimental knock-on effects for the rest of the UK and its economy? Yeah, it does.
A sector that remunerates itself far in excess of real value added.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
No it wouldn’t have it. It was binned in the proroguation.
It would have been introduced in the next session since it hadn't been progressed.
Well now the work does not need to be repeated so good job Parliament.
Has anyone on this site said they oppose this deal? Especially anyone OK with leaving, whether a leaver or remainer who respects democracy [not someone who thinks we must remain at all costs]
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
My view is we should leave with virtually any deal and it meets that threshold. It seems a bit worse than Mays deal imo. Not sure what would have to be in the deal for me to reject it given the realistic if unlikely alternative possibility of no deal.
Yours is a reasonable view as is @bigjohnowls - it is what Corbyn, Swinson and especially Benn etc should be saying. It avoids no deal as they claim to be working for.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation. So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
You think that progressing the domestic violence bill is not substantive? Says a lot about you really...
Of course I welcome the bill but it was a) The Gov't's doing b) Would have been done in the new session anyway. c) Unopposed & non controversial
No it wouldn’t have it. It was binned in the proroguation.
It would have been, but now it is being carried forward.
We have also got the pleasure of BoZo bringing his proposed double border backstop to the Commons for scrutiny, which couldn't have happened with the original prorogation.
Comments
This means, under FPTP, Lab and LD will get more bang for their buck. He uses EU and other elections to suggest the localisation effect is real (which is debatable), and the maths is difficult to run through a decent model, but the theory behind it I think holds water.
Exiled Con MPs like Boles and Clarke have said they'll vote for it.
Labour Leavers will vote for it.
A couple of Labour Remainers in Leave seats have said they'll vote for it if the EU agrees to it.
The numbers seem to be there in Parliament. Just a case of whether the EU want to play or not.
In the end I think the £39bn will persuade the EU to smudge one or two of their red lines and we'll get a deal and leave on 31st October.
No? I thought not!
Laffer curve = mumbo-jumbo economics
In order to "pay" someone £50,000pa, an employer actually has to pay (if my calcs are correct .. imcac?) £56,623
On that £50,000 the employee has to pay £4,964 in NI (12% on the £41,368 over £8,632), and £10,000 income tax (£0 on the first £12,500, 20% on the middle £25,000, and 40% on the top £12,500, so 20% overall).
This leaves the employee with £35,036, at a cost to their employer of £56,623.
£21,587 tax is paid on the £56,623, so a real rate of 38%.
Yet apart from the Domestic Violence Bill (which was anyway promised to be carried over into the next session), in terms of legislation will anything of substance be achieved in the two weeks that parliament will sit before being prorogued again? The political impact of the Supreme Court ruling has I think been minimised quite quickly given that the main consequence seems to have been to treat us to a pretty grubby spectacle of MPs shouting at each other to no particular end in order to diminish their reputation further. The opposition parties met and agreed only to disagree about what the best course is, and thus decided not to force a VONC and pretty well let things take their course as they would have done anyway. They are not, so far at least, going to push on with any extra bolt ons to the "Surrender Act". Johnson's statement to parliament today will tell MPs exactly the same as what he has already published for the world to see and probably nothing beyond that, but it will at least provide a pretext for another shouting match for those denied an opportunity to shout at him yesterday.
It truly does seem to be a Dead Parliament.
He’s not very good at this is he.
As a matter of tactics on the EU side, if I were them I'd make encouraging noises (as they are) but also point out the obvious truth that it would need far more than the remaining couple of weeks to work anything based on these 'bold new proposals' into an agreement and get it ratified by the Council and by the EU parliament. So if Boris is serious, he needs to concede that his do-or-die date is nonsense.
Apparently they're not there to listen to Johnson. It's a bit early for them to be looking at life after Johnson isn't it?
Is this a childish snub to the Opposition?
It is the UK talking to itself. Now of course talking to itself and getting some kind of agreement is no small thing and, as @GIN1138 has listed above, that's what it looks like. But it's a bit like me and my mate deciding that we're going to turn out for Arsenal this Sunday against Bournemouth*. We haven't yet squared it away with Unai Emery and he might have something to say about it.
*yes I know me and my mate turning out for Arsenal at the moment would increase their winning chances significantly.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1179709598653124608
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1179706488530624517?s=20
A short prorogation should be allowed, of course, but actions speak louder than words. The PM is a coward and not a good debater, he may be inspiritional to some in short bursts but he wont be an asset in a long GE campaign.
(Not sure if this analogy can run much further tbh
The most urgent reform, though, is to get rid of the utterly absurd cliff-edges at various points in the tax system, which heavily distort decision-making. The best proposal I've seen was the one from a left-wing thinktank which proposed a graded tax rate, which increases slowly but smoothly with income.
It is a very sensible compromise and a marked democratic improvement on May's deal. It is also miles better for all parties involved than No Deal.
The fact they've not rejected it out of hand like they did with Chequers and other proposals is quite reassuring.
Prior to this being published there was a lot of talk in the media that the EU had no incentive to compromise as they had no reason to believe any compromise would get through Parliament. There are enough declared MPs now to get this through Parliament if the EU agrees so the ball really is in their court. Accept this and we are done, they can move on without us but with our 39 billion.
Very serious very quiet.
Jezza and SNP shout shout shouty
Er... I think the 40% rate only kicks in over £50k (£12.5k personal allowance + £37.5k 20% band)...
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/tax-rates/#rate
...but your general point about NI being a hidden income tax is valid.
What we need is a move away from taxing income and employment towards taxing wealth.
Now we don't seem to be happy with it and I can see why they might say "nothing to do with us, guv". How are they supposed to negotiate with anyone on the understanding that the next internal political wiggle in the UK will render any agreement reached moot? They have to draw the line somewhere.
Not that they think the EU won't agree to it, but that they oppose it. We have a selection of views on here and I've not noticed anyone rejecting it yet.
1. Juncker leaves on 31st October. I doubt they want all this dragging on into the first months of Ursula's reign.
2. I doubt they want Farage and the Brexit Party hanging around like a bad smell and causing trouble in the new Parliament.
People say parliament is dead, but it is only because the executive is trying to kill it. I would argue that parliament is anything but dead, it just disagrees with the MINORITY executive on the issue of leaving the Eu. Is that enough reason to call an election? Maybe, but also maybe not. Parliament holds all the cards, and as our representatives, democratically elected by the populace, that is only correct.
The executive should have tried, once they lost their majority (and indeed before), to work WITH parliament on this issue to create unity and consensus, rather than AGAINST parliament, making the issue partisan and divisive. Had May offered a hand to opposition parties when it was clear she didn't have the right flank of her party on board, let alone the opposition, she could have governed on everything but Brexit with a majority in parliament.
She didn't do that. Neither is Johnson. That is a failure of theirs, not parliaments.
"Slightly disappointed by the tone" of......
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-say-au-revoir-to-france-over-two-million-french-people-now-live-abroad-and-most-are-crossing-9788348.html
Our PM is not and never has been a unilateral dictator. If the EU thought squaring May alone was sufficient they were idiots - I do not believe they are idiots, do you?
So £2,500 less tax than I put, and a 34% rate.
Also, the legislature took control - and has been shown to be shit at being the executive.
Pathetic we need to leave with a deal.
Hopefully EU accept it and the house passes it.
If its USP is that we ask no questions and you can embezzle your country (including our own) to your heart's delight while we manage your assets for you, then we might be better off without that business in the long term.
Does the financial sector suck resources out of the real sector in advanced economies? There is increasing evidence of this. Does the reliance on London finance have massive detrimental knock-on effects for the rest of the UK and its economy? Yeah, it does. Am I rattled? No-one I vote for ever wins, and nothing I want to happen ever happens, so there is no reason I should be particularly rattled right now.
As for the "charge", you're probably correct: there would be some flight after a Corbyn victory. But this is unlikely to be tested, no matter how much I don't want him to win.
The Gov't seems to have bamboozled the remain opposition into doing absolubtely nothing substantive in parliament with the extra time yielded by the unprorogation.
So in political terms the de facto position is that basically parliament was prorogued for 5 weeks.
Funny I thought Benn was against No Deal. Opposition showing themselves as bare-faced liars.
If EU accepts this proposal the Commons needs to pass it.
Hope Kinnock Nandy et al vote for it.
Jesters tone and style is important hope he keeps up the last 45 mins.
That's the first step to wining the argument.
This has created massive tension, roadblocks and the sense Parliament is dead as it can’t or more accurately, won’t, resolve the issue.
* The @Casino_Royale model: Con lion brought down by Lab/Lib/SNP/PC hyenas
* The @HYUFD model: 1983 redux, Con landslide
Both are possible.
All fell at first hurdle today.
It's a market that seems stubbornly optimistic.
"A tax on business" - Warren Buffet.
We have also got the pleasure of BoZo bringing his proposed double border backstop to the Commons for scrutiny, which couldn't have happened with the original prorogation.
I have yet to see this film but did see the HBO documentary on Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. Well worth catching.