Whilst we're talking money, an interesting (to me, anyway) little anecdote:
I've put up my newest book on Smashwords (link at the end for those who like fantasy and/or comedy) with a 'you choose the price' approach. I'm expecting those who get it to pay nothing, with the hope they like it and then buy the other books in the series.
And I got a few free downloads (I get notified when people buy my books through Smashwords directly). This morning, someone paid well over the odds for it. Not sure if it was someone I know being generous, someone who had a free download and really liked it, or someone with enough cash to pay a paperback price for a potentially free e-book. But I thought that was interesting, and unexpected. (Later, a similar thing happened again).
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
Or, if you are door-knocker, entirely expected - with a poor leader who puts off voters with a single unpopular policy - and nothing else.
To be fair, aren't you a door-knocker in a constituency which might not be the most receptive to her main policy?
On the 'single policy' point, in a way I think that's the opposite of the problem. Just as one thinks they might be OK as an alternative to the big parties, you notice that as well as a Brexit position which at least is clear, they also propose other very off-putting stuff, such as votes for children.
I am fairly chilled at this point, and am sure that she will contrast well with Johnson and Corbyn when the campaign proper begins, and media coverage rules apply.
However punters may want to follow me in on these bets with Shadsy.
LD under 10% at 18
LD 20-29 seats at 5.5
No chance in my view..just speaking to.people on the street the LIB dem.offering is beautifully simple
Yes, I'm very amused by how underestimated Jo Swinson is by those on here who fundamentally disagree with her. Though I suppose we're all guilty of underestimating, to an extent, those politicians that we disagree with. The Lib Dem message is going over just fine with those it's aimed at.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Over recent decades we have had wage stagnation for workers as company profits have been diverted to share options, share buybacks and similar mechanisms.
In essence the rewards to capital have triumphed over the rewards to workers. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is Amazon, where Bezos sits on a ridiculous fortune in shares, while his workers and delivery drivers are part of the precariat.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
It's a stupid argument from a stupid man.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Given the voting splits by age its likely that in England the Conservatives now lead among the miners of 1984.
I wrote a piece here, I think in 2007, about the way that ex-mining areas had shifted towards the Conservatives. That's only accelerated subsequently.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
It's a stupid argument from a stupid man.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that rise as a multiple of it, then you encourage managements to gamble. It's heads I win, tails you lose.
It also led to the Global Financial Crisis, and the meltdown of the banks. If you gamble and win you make tens of millions. If you gamble and lose, it's the shareholders who bear the brunt of your failure.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Now, outside Sheffield, the Labour vote in South Yorkshire is going through the floor.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Given the voting splits by age its likely that in England the Conservatives now lead among the miners of 1984.
I wrote a piece here, I think in 2007, about the way that ex-mining areas had shifted towards the Conservatives. That's only accelerated subsequently.
Yes, but it is a different version of Con. It is English Nationalists and Populists antagonistic to the metropolis. This is a fundamentally different strand, comparable to the redneck Republicans across the pond. It may get quite uncomfortable for those like JRM.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
It's a stupid argument from a stupid man.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that rise as a multiple of it, then you encourage managements to gamble. It's heads I win, tails you lose.
It also led to the Global Financial Crisis, and the meltdown of the banks. If you gamble and win you make tens of millions. If you gamble and lose, it's the shareholders who bear the brunt of your failure.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Looks to me like The Daily Telegraph are trying to avoid triumphalism. They don't want to make the same mistake as 2017, where a poll like this would probably be reported as "Boris on course for massive majority".
36/28 would produce a Conservative majority, but it is very sensible to avoid any sign of triumphalism.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Given the voting splits by age its likely that in England the Conservatives now lead among the miners of 1984.
I noticed that. See also Trump in the rust belt.
Although to be fair, the Lab->Con drift for the old mining constituencies has been noticed in the last two elections. Plus, there is the whole Nottinghamshire miners vs the Other miners thing...
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Section 28?
A shameful mistake, out of character with her consistent support for homosexuality, she was one of the few Tory MPs to back Leo Abse's bill to decriminalise homosexuality in England and Wales.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Given the voting splits by age its likely that in England the Conservatives now lead among the miners of 1984.
I noticed that. See also Trump in the rust belt.
Although to be fair, the Lab->Con drift for the old mining constituencies has been noticed in the last two elections. Plus, there is the whole Nottinghamshire miners vs the Other miners thing...
There's also the short life expectency of coal-face miners as a result of pneumoconiosis.
There's one very simple way to get rid of billionaires and that is to rebase the currency so that one new King Charles III Pound (each appropriately subdivided into shillings and pence) is worth one hundred Queen Elizabeth II Pounds. Job done.
More seriously, if you envisage a differently regulated economy that produced more equal outcomes - they shared the proceeds of work and effort more equitably - then one thing you might expect is that such an economy would not produce billionaires.
Instead the general populace would be richer and more able to pay the tax required to fund public services, without having to rely on a narrow tax base as at present.
How you do that, and how you manage the transition, I don't know. I would have thought you'd want to find a way that produced that outcome naturally, rather than with the imposition of high wealth and income taxes.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Section 28?
A shameful mistake, out of character with her consistent support for homosexuality, she was one of the few Tory MPs to back Leo Abse's bill to decriminalise homosexuality in England and Wales.
Well in keeping with the Conservatives' general homophobic attitude. A majority of them voted against equal marriage. That was this decade.
Are the Lib Dems going to seriously target anywhere outside London ?
South West and a couple of seats in Yorkshire.
SW: St. Ives looks a nailed on gain for the LibDems. After that, it's going to be hard graft.....
Truro & Falmouth looks winnable - Labour closer than expected in 2017, collapse towards LD vote in Euros, plus Sarah Newton standing down won't make life any easier for the Tories. Decent Green vote to harvest as well.
You can all believe this or not but here goes.. I was with a very senior Tory for.mist of today watching the rugby then lunch..he has absolutely no idea how the feeling is in his constituency..not only that the individual told.me.nor.do most Tory MPs. The LIb Dems.ground game.is far more.advanced than.any.of the other parties.. Just saying
The LibDem ground game is going to be stretched, though, if they spread their efforts too widely.
I can only assume that some of the ex-Cons they have taken in will get bugger all support to hold their seats?
Whilst we're talking money, an interesting (to me, anyway) little anecdote:
I've put up my newest book on Smashwords (link at the end for those who like fantasy and/or comedy) with a 'you choose the price' approach. I'm expecting those who get it to pay nothing, with the hope they like it and then buy the other books in the series.
And I got a few free downloads (I get notified when people buy my books through Smashwords directly). This morning, someone paid well over the odds for it. Not sure if it was someone I know being generous, someone who had a free download and really liked it, or someone with enough cash to pay a paperback price for a potentially free e-book. But I thought that was interesting, and unexpected. (Later, a similar thing happened again).
People are more altruistic then they're given credit for. Although being generous in this instance provides two benefits. Firstly one feels virtuous, and secondly one supports the work of a creator that you wish to continue creating.
You can all believe this or not but here goes.. I was with a very senior Tory for.mist of today watching the rugby then lunch..he has absolutely no idea how the feeling is in his constituency..not only that the individual told.me.nor.do most Tory MPs. The LIb Dems.ground game.is far more.advanced than.any.of the other parties.. Just saying
The LibDem ground game is going to be stretched, though, if they spread their efforts too widely.
I can only assume that some of the ex-Cons they have taken in will get bugger all support to hold their seats?
Actually that's an interesting question. If they are targeting their efforts sensibly, I imagine most of the defectors won't get much support, except a photo-shoot with Jo; but which ones will it be worth them making an effort in?
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Yes, I think that's right.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway used to have a different way of incentivising managers. You could buy stock, and the company would lend you money to do so, but if you did poorly, and the stock price went down*, then you were in deep doodoo. It encouraged managers to act like owners, because they suffered the downside as well benefiting from the upside.
This led to them building more sustainable, lower risk, businesses.
When I was an invstor, I'd always take good look at management compensation packages. I really disliked asymetry of risk.
* The stock in question was privately held, and there would be agreed valuation metrics.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
It's a stupid argument from a stupid man.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that re.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Most people who lose their jobs do not end up homeless and hungry, indeed many can live off savings until they find a new job as Applegarth and Goodwin did.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Section 28?
A shameful mistake, out of character with her consistent support for homosexuality, she was one of the few Tory MPs to back Leo Abse's bill to decriminalise homosexuality in England and Wales.
You can't reconcile Section 28 with "consistent support for homosexuality". At the very least, it's an inconsistency.
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Putting solar panels (for example) on roofs when they are being built is less expensive than retrofitting, and probably results (in the South of England at least) in electricity savings that outweigh the increased build cost.
The most striking thing about these latest two polls, and other recent ones, is that the LibDems don't seem to be picking up the levels of support which one might expect given the political environment and the states of the two big parties.
I am surprised by the hostility I hear to Swinson. People just don't like here (especially women of my acquaintance)
This surprises me entirely. But it is what I encounter.
People obviously don't remember the Tories under Thatcher!
Thatcher was a brilliant moderate, she was very pro European, one of her earliest acts was to civilise the Scots and Norn Irish by decriminalising homosexuality, and she believed in climate change as well.
Hmm not how it felt if you were growing up in Scotland and the NE of England in the 1980s, with the "enemy within" stuff, Poll Tax, tax cuts for the rich, the later hostility towards Europe, crazy monetarism, mass unemployment, and her horrible fake posh voice that was like nails on a blackboard. I will give you climate change though, she was a good scientist unlike all the awful PPE wankers who have followed her, and some of the records published ex post have shown her to have perhaps taken a more reasonable line in private, eg on South Africa and talking to the IRA, than the strident right wing tone she adopted in public. Undoubtedly the greatest politician of the postwar era, like her or mostly loathe her as I did.
I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 1980s, the epicentre of anti-Thatcher sentiment.
Thatcher as she governed is the benchmark for my PMs.
Given the voting splits by age its likely that in England the Conservatives now lead among the miners of 1984.
I noticed that. See also Trump in the rust belt.
Although to be fair, the Lab->Con drift for the old mining constituencies has been noticed in the last two elections. Plus, there is the whole Nottinghamshire miners vs the Other miners thing...
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Plus everyone gets at least 1 debate to take part in
There’s a fake account suggesting we’ve polled the Isle of Wight. Despite a lot of retweeting of the fake account claiming to be reporting a Survation poll there, we have not. We hope you are all having a pleasant evening otherwise!
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Putting solar panels (for example) on roofs when they are being built is less expensive than retrofitting, and probably results (in the South of England at least) in electricity savings that outweigh the increased build cost.
I have had solar for four years and they are a huge success
I do think they should be mandated. In my case they cost £6,500
You can all believe this or not but here goes.. I was with a very senior Tory for.mist of today watching the rugby then lunch..he has absolutely no idea how the feeling is in his constituency..not only that the individual told.me.nor.do most Tory MPs. The LIb Dems.ground game.is far more.advanced than.any.of the other parties.. Just saying
The LibDem ground game is going to be stretched, though, if they spread their efforts too widely.
I can only assume that some of the ex-Cons they have taken in will get bugger all support to hold their seats?
It’s a fifty fifty election fifty target and fifty development which Is progress from a twenty twenty election. Don’t dismiss Yeovil though the Tory is useless and they are not short of cash nor organization, look at the locals.
Jeremy Corbyn is an incredible danger to the country.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got his wish and there were zero billionaires in the country after he spent 5 years in Downing Street. What impact that would have on the Exchequer shouldn't need pointing out ...
But you’re completely relaxed about the current Prime Minister’s attempt to suspend democracy.
I must have missed Swinson becoming Prime Minister.
In real life I seem to recall there being an election now as the current PM has been pushing for, for ages, since before the non-prorogation even.
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Can't see there being a Boris v Corbyn v Swinson this time without Farage tho.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the ludicrous increase in ceo vs average pay over the last 50 years. Either ceos have got 20x better at their jobs (they haven't) or they have got better at diverting money to themselves at the expense of the workforce and shareholders (they have). It is perfectly acceptable capitalist thought that we should identify and frustrate cartels of this sort rather than cringe in gratitude at the thought that they pay a limited amount of tax on the proceeds of the scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that re.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Most people who lose their jobs do not end up homeless and hungry, indeed many can live off savings until they find a new job as Applegarth and Goodwin did.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
A bit of advice before you start your phone canvassing.
Hundreds of thousands per year for life for failed bankers while the proles get statutory redundancy is not a vote winner.
Are the Lib Dems going to seriously target anywhere outside London ?
South West and a couple of seats in Yorkshire.
SW: St. Ives looks a nailed on gain for the LibDems. After that, it's going to be hard graft.....
Truro & Falmouth looks winnable - Labour closer than expected in 2017, collapse towards LD vote in Euros, plus Sarah Newton standing down won't make life any easier for the Tories. Decent Green vote to harvest as well.
Maybe SE Cornwall too, though less likely.
I'd have thought StAlbans, Lewes, Truro, falmouth, Hallam, Ceredigeon, Fife NE, Leeds NW, Cheltenham, Yate (whatever it is called, Steve Webb's old patch), Berwick, Cambridge
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
There’s a fake account suggesting we’ve polled the Isle of Wight. Despite a lot of retweeting of the fake account claiming to be reporting a Survation poll there, we have not. We hope you are all having a pleasant evening otherwise!
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Can't see there being a Boris v Corbyn v Swinson this time without Farage tho.
Can't have that without Sturgeon too. Sturgeon has many more MPs than Swinson and infinitely higher proportion of MPs than Farage so no excuse to exclude her if you're including them.
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Can't see there being a Boris v Corbyn v Swinson this time without Farage tho.
Can't have that without Sturgeon too. Sturgeon has many more MPs than Swinson and infinitely higher proportion of MPs than Farage so no excuse to exclude her if you're including them.
No need for sturgeon she can have a Scotland only debate, farage and Swinson yes
Are the Lib Dems going to seriously target anywhere outside London ?
South West and a couple of seats in Yorkshire.
SW: St. Ives looks a nailed on gain for the LibDems. After that, it's going to be hard graft.....
Truro & Falmouth looks winnable - Labour closer than expected in 2017, collapse towards LD vote in Euros, plus Sarah Newton standing down won't make life any easier for the Tories. Decent Green vote to harvest as well.
Maybe SE Cornwall too, though less likely.
I'd have thought StAlbans, Lewes, Truro, falmouth, Hallam, Ceredigeon, Fife NE, Leeds NW, Cheltenham, Yate (whatever it is called, Steve Webb's old patch), Berwick, Cambridge
Sad to say Truro & Falmouth is just the one seat...
Just had a look at Newquay and St Austell where LDs were historically strong but will need some heroic splitting of the Leave vote by BXP to give them a chance this time I think.
There's also the short life expectency of coal-face miners as a result of pneumoconiosis.
Whilst true, those with (or who later developed it) pneumoconiosis died some time ago, and quite a lot of the old miners are still alive (if you were 25 in say 1990, you're 55 now). So that cohort effect might not be as big as you think.
However, what has changed dramatically that such areas are no longer heavy engineering, being more SMEs, shops, offices, call centres and the like. That change in profile is sufficient to explain things.
The problem with Corbyn's Labour is not just that it's far-left (well, ish), it's that it's old. He seriously wishes to re-open the mines, despite the fact that they became inaccessible years ago, and nobody now living there can or will work a pit. His views are simply no longer relevant or (as @Gabs2 and @Big_G_NorthWales are at pains to remind us), actively offputting. Hence the lack of takeoff.
ITV have said they will hold a second multiparty debate.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
I'd assume so. The others get to moan about a head to head, which they will enjoy, the big two get to emphasise that one of them will be PM no matter what the others say, and everyone is happy.
Can't see there being a Boris v Corbyn v Swinson this time without Farage tho.
Can't have that without Sturgeon too. Sturgeon has many more MPs than Swinson and infinitely higher proportion of MPs than Farage so no excuse to exclude her if you're including them.
No need for sturgeon she can have a Scotland only debate, farage and Swinson yes
If you are happy to exclude the third largest party why include the fourth largest and a party with zero MPs?
Either we include minor parties like LDs in which case the SNP are a bigger minor party than them, or we don't.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the e scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that re.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Most people who lose their jobs do not end up homeless and hungry, indeed many can live off savings until they find a new job as Applegarth and Goodwin did.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
A bit of advice before you start your phone canvassing.
Hundreds of thousands per year for life for failed bankers while the proles get statutory redundancy is not a vote winner.
It was Labour that bailed out the banks I would reply (the US at least let Lehmans go bust).
However regardless I could not care what most voters think of it, theft of savings and pensions is wrong no matter how popular and Goodwin and Applegarth were sacked once the banks were bailed out they did not get redundancy pay
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
A confidential Tory election dossier obtained by Sky News reveals details of the "attack messages" and "lines to take" for candidates at the upcoming election.
That's the problem with being a minor party. Not sure 'past electoral support and/or current support' aids their case as much as I personally would like to see her there for partisan reasons.
The one that came second in the last nationwide election
European Elections are Mickey Mouse protest votes not a General Election. Or do you think we will shortly have Prime Minister Farage?
Not at all there are no Mickey Mouse elections when everybody is eligible to vote the order of debates is simple 80% candidates across the UK gets you a place, 80% in Wales Scotland or NI gets you in the debates on local tv. No problem no arguament
A confidential Tory election dossier obtained by Sky News reveals details of the "attack messages" and "lines to take" for candidates at the upcoming election.
F1: markets still to get going, but Verstappen's now 3.6 for the win. If you backed my earlier tip (10.5 each way) then there's 5 available as a lay on Betfair right now.
A confidential Tory election dossier obtained by Sky News reveals details of the "attack messages" and "lines to take" for candidates at the upcoming election.
There are many countries that have more billionaires per capita than us. Including countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Canada, and Denmark. You wouldn't want to live in most of the countries that have far fewer.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm more interested in how he's going to effect that.
Straightforward seizure of private property? Punitive taxation? Exile?
To some extent you are welcoming your new insect overlords. A small percentage of the billionaires are spiffy entrepreneurs reaping the just rewards of inventing a better vacuum cleaner. The rest are kleptocrats. We can tell this from the e scam.
Did you ever watch Wall Street? In it, Gordon Gecko attacked the old world, when CEOs didn't get paid much, but didn't really care about corporate performance. They enjoyed their executive dining room and the perks of power, and their businesses stagnated.
Now, CEOs are incentivised up to their eyeballs to drive share prices. It's been a key driver of disparities.
The problem is that many of those share prices have been driven DOWN.
If you incentivise people on the share price, and you have rewards that re.
And its the 'heads I win, tails you lose' which is a big driver of populism.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
Most people who lose their jobs do not end up homeless and hungry, indeed many can live off savings until they find a new job as Applegarth and Goodwin did.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
A bit of advice before you start your phone canvassing.
Hundreds of thousands per year for life for failed bankers while the proles get statutory redundancy is not a vote winner.
It was Labour that bailed out the banks I would reply (the US at least let Lehmans go bust).
However regardless I could not care what most voters think of it, theft of savings and pensions is wrong no matter how popular and Goodwin and Applegarth were sacked once the banks were bailed out they did not get redundancy pay
They got millions from ultimately the taxpayers.
And the process of different terms and conditions for the executive oligarchy to what the workforce receive continues.
Comments
I've put up my newest book on Smashwords (link at the end for those who like fantasy and/or comedy) with a 'you choose the price' approach. I'm expecting those who get it to pay nothing, with the hope they like it and then buy the other books in the series.
And I got a few free downloads (I get notified when people buy my books through Smashwords directly). This morning, someone paid well over the odds for it. Not sure if it was someone I know being generous, someone who had a free download and really liked it, or someone with enough cash to pay a paperback price for a potentially free e-book. But I thought that was interesting, and unexpected. (Later, a similar thing happened again).
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/961013
No signs of them at all in Hampshire East.
In essence the rewards to capital have triumphed over the rewards to workers. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is Amazon, where Bezos sits on a ridiculous fortune in shares, while his workers and delivery drivers are part of the precariat.
Leeds NW?
Ceridigion?
It also led to the Global Financial Crisis, and the meltdown of the banks. If you gamble and win you make tens of millions. If you gamble and lose, it's the shareholders who bear the brunt of your failure.
Mr. F, for Labour to lose the People's Republic of South Yorkshire the vote would need to collapse.
If the likes of Applegarth and Goodwin had ended up behind 'Homeless and Hungry' signs the country would have been a different place.
36/28 would produce a Conservative majority, but it is very sensible to avoid any sign of triumphalism.
Although to be fair, the Lab->Con drift for the old mining constituencies has been noticed in the last two elections. Plus, there is the whole Nottinghamshire miners vs the Other miners thing...
Brighton Kemptown is more tricky to assess. I've avoided that one.
More seriously, if you envisage a differently regulated economy that produced more equal outcomes - they shared the proceeds of work and effort more equitably - then one thing you might expect is that such an economy would not produce billionaires.
Instead the general populace would be richer and more able to pay the tax required to fund public services, without having to rely on a narrow tax base as at present.
How you do that, and how you manage the transition, I don't know. I would have thought you'd want to find a way that produced that outcome naturally, rather than with the imposition of high wealth and income taxes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50273350
How to make much needed new homes more expensive, less attractive (no GCH), and increase the price of existing stock.
Maybe SE Cornwall too, though less likely.
In 2015 there was a Cameron v Miliband head to head, 2 multiparty debates and 1 Cameron v Miliband v Clegg, so likely will be similar format
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway used to have a different way of incentivising managers. You could buy stock, and the company would lend you money to do so, but if you did poorly, and the stock price went down*, then you were in deep doodoo. It encouraged managers to act like owners, because they suffered the downside as well benefiting from the upside.
This led to them building more sustainable, lower risk, businesses.
When I was an invstor, I'd always take good look at management compensation packages. I really disliked asymetry of risk.
* The stock in question was privately held, and there would be agreed valuation metrics.
That said, there is little doubt that the British State was a good deal more accepting of homosexuality in 1990 than it was in 1979.
It was right they were removed from their paid posts after the bailouts, it would not have been right if all their savings were taken
I do think they should be mandated. In my case they cost £6,500
In real life I seem to recall there being an election now as the current PM has been pushing for, for ages, since before the non-prorogation even.
What a difference two days makes.
Hundreds of thousands per year for life for failed bankers while the proles get statutory redundancy is not a vote winner.
Just had a look at Newquay and St Austell where LDs were historically strong but will need some heroic splitting of the Leave vote by BXP to give them a chance this time I think.
However, what has changed dramatically that such areas are no longer heavy engineering, being more SMEs, shops, offices, call centres and the like. That change in profile is sufficient to explain things.
The problem with Corbyn's Labour is not just that it's far-left (well, ish), it's that it's old. He seriously wishes to re-open the mines, despite the fact that they became inaccessible years ago, and nobody now living there can or will work a pit. His views are simply no longer relevant or (as @Gabs2 and @Big_G_NorthWales are at pains to remind us), actively offputting. Hence the lack of takeoff.
Either we include minor parties like LDs in which case the SNP are a bigger minor party than them, or we don't.
However regardless I could not care what most voters think of it, theft of savings and pensions is wrong no matter how popular and Goodwin and Applegarth were sacked once the banks were bailed out they did not get redundancy pay
A confidential Tory election dossier obtained by Sky News reveals details of the "attack messages" and "lines to take" for candidates at the upcoming election.
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-leaked-tory-dossier-details-attack-lines-for-candidates-11852076
How does Farage dig his way out of this one?
Plus keeping Swinson off screen is not a negative for them she's useless
And the process of different terms and conditions for the executive oligarchy to what the workforce receive continues.