politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The November WH2020 Democratic debate and another reminder tha

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The November WH2020 Democratic debate and another reminder that they do these things better in the country where Boris was born

Overnight we have had the latest Democratic party debate as part of the prolonged process to determine who should fight against Donald Trump in the presidential election next November.

Read the full story here

tlg86

First.

Sandpit

Second, like UK TV networks covering political debates.

Cyclefree

How is my Buttigieg bet looking?

MarqueeMark

Cyclefree said:

How is my Buttigieg bet looking?

A lot better than when you placed it!

Philip_Thompson

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Speaking personally I would legalise both the strong and weak stuff and sell it through legal mechanisms and not gangs. And let HMRC join the fight against any illegal, unregulated and untaxed sales.

Lets compare with alcohol. I don't know any alcoholics who abuse low strength beer, though that may be what they started drinking. It is high strength drinks, sometimes beer or wine but most especially spirits which are the biggest problem. But we don't criminalise spirits - and we offer education and health services to those who struggle.

I don't see anyone arguing to legalise because it did them no harm, I see arguments to legalise because prohibition has failed miserably and is leading to drug gangs.

Accurately describing the failure of a current policy is not in itself - without more - a good argument for doing the opposite.

At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.

We have evidence from hundreds of countries across the globe and a hundred years of history of what is and what is not working.

What "harm involved" are you talking about? And are you just restricting to the side effects of the cannabis itself? Or are you including in "harm involved" the stabbings and other fatal and non-fatal gang violence that prohibition is causing both now and has caused historically?

We have been debating this issue now for decades, we don't have relatively little or no knowledge in this area.

Roger

'I raised $17,000 from ex boyfriends and I'd like to point out it's not an expanding base'

A good line by Amy Klobuchar. Maybe Mike's onto another winner. A sense of humour goes a long way.

Alistair

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

Philip_Thompson

Sandpit said:

Second, like UK TV networks covering political debates.

UK TV networks are a lot lower than second!

Australian TV debates are mammothly better than UK ones too. Maybe when we're on the second page of this thread we'll be upto where UK TV networks place.

noneoftheabove

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

Alphabet_Soup

Has there been any adverse comment yet on the fact that Cecil Rhodes paid for Buttiegieg's education?

Philip_Thompson

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

Roger

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

He''s a compulsive liar doing what compulsive liars do.

noneoftheabove

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

Pulpstar

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

He's not a details man, the finer points of arithmetic are for minions like Javid to deal with.

Benpointer

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

I take your point.

I promise to sign up to the government memory realignment programme as soon as the new Home Secretary announces it.

noneoftheabove

Pulpstar said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

He's not a details man, the finer points of arithmetic are for minions like Javid to deal with.

Or perhaps it is deliberate lies like the bus campaign. Get everyone arguing about whether the Tories are giving workers 500 or 85 embedding the thought of the Tories giving workers something. Idiot or liar for a PM? Or a combo?

DavidL

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

IanB2

Roger said:

'I raised $17,000 from ex boyfriends and I'd like to point out it's not an expanding base'

A good line by Amy Klobuchar. Maybe Mike's onto another winner. A sense of humour goes a long way.

Normally she is as dull as water. I tried hard to listen to her radio interview when I was in the US but it was impossible to concentrate, so uninteresting was what she had to say.

Benpointer

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

2039 at current rates of inflation.

2022 if the Tories raise inflation to 15% (they've done it before, just saying )

noneoftheabove

Benpointer said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

2039 at current rates of inflation.

2022 if the Tories raise inflation to 15% (they've done it before, just saying )

Why stop at 12,500, why not go for 100,000 by 2085?

Benpointer

IanB2 said:

Roger said:

'I raised $17,000 from ex boyfriends and I'd like to point out it's not an expanding base'

A good line by Amy Klobuchar. Maybe Mike's onto another winner. A sense of humour goes a long way.

Normally she is as dull as water. I tried hard to listen to her radio interview when I was in the US but it was impossible to concentrate, so uninteresting was what she had to say.

America might be about ready for an uninteresting President after the past 3 years.

Philip_Thompson

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

squareroot2

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

noneoftheabove

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

Pulpstar

On the US race, this is still Biden's to lose. His biggest strength isn't momentum - it's that there is no one else in the "big 4" that is anywhere near on the black vote.

I'd have this as :.

Biden

Gap

Warren

Fresh air

Sanders
Buttigieg

30 furlongs

Klobuchar/Harris

No chance

Yang/Bloomberg

right now.

Benpointer

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

The Tories haven't been at all clear about this from what I can see - different stories given by the same people in different interviews.

Let's see what the manifesto says on Sunday.

OnlyLivingBoy

squareroot2 said:

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies.
My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?

DavidL

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

TheScreamingEagles

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

As I was born at the end of the 70s am I right in thinking the SNP helped oust a Labour government and ushered in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule?

Pulpstar

noneoftheabove said:

Pulpstar said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

He's not a details man, the finer points of arithmetic are for minions like Javid to deal with.

Or perhaps it is deliberate lies like the bus campaign. Get everyone arguing about whether the Tories are giving workers 500 or 85 embedding the thought of the Tories giving workers something. Idiot or liar for a PM? Or a combo?

Good spot.

Come up with an idea, overegg it a bit; get a row going about your idea and dominate the morning news with said idea.
Looks like the bus again to me.

Philip_Thompson

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

The Tories haven't been at all clear about this from what I can see - different stories given by the same people in different interviews.

Let's see what the manifesto says on Sunday.

Javid was very clear in the interview he gave earlier. I'd think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a good person to listen to on this.

Roger

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

Charlie Kennedy was crucified for getting his sums wrong but we later learnt he had a drink problem. Johnson had no such excuse. he's just a bare-faced liar and everyone knows it. Is he worse han Trump? I wouldn't like to have to judge but the similarities don't end there.

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

The UK is extremely well placed for growth compared with most of the EU ( clearly some of the eastern members are still in catch up mode). The gloom and doom is massively overdone and Brexit is a relatively trivial matter in economic terms.

another_richard

The ONS as at the end of 2018/19 has dumped over £55bn of student loans on the government debt:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/october2019#developments-in-public-sector-finance-statistics-september-2019

That was an increase of over £16bn on the previous financial year.

Long term economic plan was the phrase.

Big_G_NorthWales

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

Sensible to let labour and lib dems put their manifesto in the public domain first.

Some talk it will be on sunday

noneoftheabove

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

MarqueeMark

Tories arguing about how just much they are giving way to the voters, on the day of the Labour manifesto launch.

Accident? Hmmmm.......

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

The UK is extremely well placed for growth compared with most of the EU ( clearly some of the eastern members are still in catch up mode). The gloom and doom is massively overdone and Brexit is a relatively trivial matter in economic terms.

Agreed.

Selebian

Looking at the debate clips and comparing it to the recent leaders' debate here and the hustings for the Conservative leadership... Well, sure maybe the US networks do it better, but it seems to me they just have better candidates in the debates. I'm jealous of US politics right now and I can't remember the last time I felt like that.

HYUFD

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

alb1on

OnlyLivingBoy said:

squareroot2 said:

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies.
My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?

That may be a new (and plausible) explanation for why he always fails to give the right answer when asked how many children he has.

nunu2

Are there any seats non Tory seats the Brexit Party is NOT standing in that if they did would hurt the tories more?

Bristol North West looks to be one. Any others?

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

As I was born at the end of the 70s am I right in thinking the SNP helped oust a Labour government and ushered in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule?

They showed tremendous prescience in installing the midwife of Scottish independence.

HYUFD

According to CBS over the last week Warren leads New Hampshire and Biden and Warren lead Iowa

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_pubOi7tGP9BOHHNbNj3XLtMXxOUheSd/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13afQpotpd1MwwjjjoegtFv-tRtQ6tQbO/view

Big_G_NorthWales

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

MarqueeMark

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

The UK is extremely well placed for growth compared with most of the EU ( clearly some of the eastern members are still in catch up mode). The gloom and doom is massively overdone and Brexit is a relatively trivial matter in economic terms.

I was at a meeting yesterday where there was an appetite expressed to bring billions into this country for projects.

"It's easier to raise a few billion than a few million for projects in this country."

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

Not great news for the SNP in the middle of an election campaign

DavidL

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

HYUFD

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

As I was born at the end of the 70s am I right in thinking the SNP helped oust a Labour government and ushered in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule?

It showed tremendous prescience in installing the midwife of Scottish independence.

Scotland voted to stay in the UK and reject independence in 2014 after Thatcher

Banterman

Roger said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

Charlie Kennedy was crucified for getting his sums wrong but we later learnt he had a drink problem. Johnson had no such excuse. he's just a bare-faced liar and everyone knows it. Is he worse han Trump? I wouldn't like to have to judge but the similarities don't end there.

Same view of Corbyn's lies on the NHS?

148grss

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

I remember listening to an interview recently talking about Brexit saying that whilst money will almost always flow in in that sector, the workforce is highly dependent on foreign workers, and many businesses are seeing their staff going home / going to the EU.

Also, this article from only a few weeks ago explains the likely impact

https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34531/how-bad-will-brexit-be-for-tech

noneoftheabove

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

Yes if I was a Spurs fan I would prefer fast attacking football to Mourinho! Their football in 2019 has not been particularly fast and attacking though, part of the reason for the sacking. If the football was good and the results had been unlucky Pochettino probably would have got longer.

MarqueeMark

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

Wow.

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Q. Under which British pm was the £ most devalued by inflation?

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

Not great news for the SNP in the middle of an election campaign

Court case to be heard over a month from March including attempted rape in Bute House

MarqueeMark

News order:

Salmond
Prince Andrew












Labour Manifesto launch

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

In sex cases prosecutors talk of the power of 3. If you have 3 complainers alleging similar conduct then even if one of them proves to be a bit suspect juries convict. 10 ? Jeez.

Benpointer

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Under which PM was the highest ever UK inflation recorded?

nunu2

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

Not great news for the SNP in the middle of an election campaign

Did Nicola know?

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

On the US race, this is still Biden's to lose. His biggest strength isn't momentum - it's that there is no one else in the "big 4" that is anywhere near on the black vote.

I'd have this as :.

Biden

Gap

Warren

Fresh air

Sanders
Buttigieg

30 furlongs

Klobuchar/Harris

No chance

Yang/Bloomberg

right now.

What about Hillary?

Philip_Thompson

148grss said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

I remember listening to an interview recently talking about Brexit saying that whilst money will almost always flow in in that sector, the workforce is highly dependent on foreign workers, and many businesses are seeing their staff going home / going to the EU.

Also, this article from only a few weeks ago explains the likely impact

https://www.itpro.co.uk/technology/34531/how-bad-will-brexit-be-for-tech

Considering the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU . . . considering that 93% of the world's population is outside the EU . . . and considering the EU27 have a grand total of ZERO of the Top 50 Universities in the entire world . . . why would foreign workers be dependent upon free movement with Europe?

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

Wow.

For some ugly men power (be it in business or politics) is about using it as a chance to “influence” women they’d previously never have had a chance with to shag them.

Yuk.

MarqueeMark

Salmond:

"He denies all the allegations, which include one attempted rape, one intent to rape, 10 sexual assaults and two indecent assaults.

The offences are alleged to have happened between June 2008 and November 2014.

His QC, Gordon Jackson, indicated that Mr Salmond will plead not guilty, and judge Lady Dorrian set the trial date for 9 March next year. The trial is expected to last about four weeks."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50486713

That is some serious jail time if found guilty.

Endillion

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

Sensible to let labour and lib dems put their manifesto in the public domain first.

Some talk it will be on sunday

There's just no upside for the Tories in putting their manifesto in the public domain early, thus allowing the opposition parties more time to deliberately mischaracterise selected policies.

HYUFD

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Under which PM was the highest ever UK inflation recorded?

Wilson in 1975

https://www.icalculator.info/inflation/historical-inflation-rates.html

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

100% agreed.

I remember saying a year ago that I expected after Brexit once the uncertainty goes away that the UK will outperform the EZ and I was laughed at here for that.

The UK is extremely well placed for growth compared with most of the EU ( clearly some of the eastern members are still in catch up mode). The gloom and doom is massively overdone and Brexit is a relatively trivial matter in economic terms.

I was at a meeting yesterday where there was an appetite expressed to bring billions into this country for projects.

"It's easier to raise a few billion than a few million for projects in this country."

It’s the advantage of London and our immensely strong financial markets. Nowhere else in the EU has anything like the available capital looking for projects.

Endillion

nunu2 said:

Are there any seats non Tory seats the Brexit Party is NOT standing in that if they did would hurt the tories more?

Bristol North West looks to be one. Any others?

Dudley North.

Big_G_NorthWales

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

Time_to_Leave

So the Labour manifesto is drowned out by Salmond and a row over exactly how much the Tories will cut your taxes by, while the Tory manifesto will leverage the Sunday papers and political shows?

Yeah someone knows what they are doing, and Labour is just unlucky.

alb1on

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.


But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

Yes if I was a Spurs fan I would prefer fast attacking football to Mourinho! Their football in 2019 has not been particularly fast and attacking though, part of the reason for the sacking. If the football was good and the results had been unlucky Pochettino probably would have got longer.

Spurs deserve what they get. I would have suggested Pulis. Until Daniel Levy goes they are tainted by a man who starves his managers of funds and takes all transfer decisions - whilst blaming the manager for the consequences. And that ignores his renowned tapping up of other clubs players, and making public statements about offers which bear as much relation to reality as a Boris (or Jezza) economic plan.

noneoftheabove

Endillion said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

Sensible to let labour and lib dems put their manifesto in the public domain first.

Some talk it will be on sunday

There's just no upside for the Tories in putting their manifesto in the public domain early, thus allowing the opposition parties more time to deliberately mischaracterise selected policies.

Why is it in the interests of Labour to go before the Tories? In the future will we end up with a stand off and neither gets round to even giving us a manifesto?

Jonathan

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Under which PM was the highest ever UK inflation recorded?

Wilson in 1975

https://www.icalculator.info/inflation/historical-inflation-rates.html

Fixing the Barber boom.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1197454605711376384?s=20

Big_G_NorthWales

Salmonds case will take up the whole of March 2020

kle4

IshmaelZ said:

Cyclefree said:

Accurately describing the failure of a current policy is not in itself - without more - a good argument for doing the opposite.

At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.

Not sure what your complaint is. If you are saying posters here are making it up as they go along - well, I certainly am, but we all have to get through life making decisions "on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge" because we can't all be experts at everything. This includes people like governments and MPs and judges. If you are saying there is insufficient research into cannabis out there, I am not sure what would satisfy you. There's tons. Governments are there to formulate and enact policies, not to set up Royal Commissions.

Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.

It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.

noneoftheabove

alb1on said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.


But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

Yes if I was a Spurs fan I would prefer fast attacking football to Mourinho! Their football in 2019 has not been particularly fast and attacking though, part of the reason for the sacking. If the football was good and the results had been unlucky Pochettino probably would have got longer.

Spurs deserve what they get. I would have suggested Pulis. Until Daniel Levy goes they are tainted by a man who starves his managers of funds and takes all transfer decisions - whilst blaming the manager for the consequences. And that ignores his renowned tapping up of other clubs players, and making public statements about offers which bear as much relation to reality as a Boris (or Jezza) economic plan.

Eddie Howe would have been a good fit. Left field would be Chris Wilder, a bigger jump up but tactically he has been exceptionally successful over a few seasons now.

Andy_JS

"‘Data scientists’ are gradually replacing those grand ‘pollsters’ who used to offer confident insights with a neat turn of phrase. These new number nerds are likely to be under 30 and might well know nothing about politics. Instead of simple surveys and uniform national swings, they are using complex statistical models. For people whose bread and butter relies on being seen as a savvy political ‘expert’, all this amounts to an existential threat.

The most powerful data modelling technique in politics at the moment, is something called MRP. It stands for “multilevel regression with post-stratification” — not exactly catchy — and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands."

https://unherd.com/2019/11/unherd-britain-mapping-the-issues-that-matter/

squareroot2

OnlyLivingBoy said:

squareroot2 said:

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies.
My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?

Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling

DavidL

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

Yes if I was a Spurs fan I would prefer fast attacking football to Mourinho! Their football in 2019 has not been particularly fast and attacking though, part of the reason for the sacking. If the football was good and the results had been unlucky Pochettino probably would have got longer.

The point I was making (despite the bruises of M’s time at OT which was deeply depressing) is that the object is to win. To date the Tory campaign looks ruthlessly focused on that in a way it never did in 2017.

Endillion

Roger said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

Charlie Kennedy was crucified for getting his sums wrong but we later learnt he had a drink problem. Johnson had no such excuse. he's just a bare-faced liar and everyone knows it. Is he worse han Trump? I wouldn't like to have to judge but the similarities don't end there.

So, in 2017 the Labour manifesto promised to end future tuition fees, and made a vague commitment to look at what could be done with existing debt. Labour PPCs and campaigners went straight off to start telling students and recent graduates that a Labour government would cancel all debt ab initio. Subsequent to the election, they admitted this wasn't achievable.

Is that better, worse, or about the same? What about if they try the same sort of trick this time round?

Roger

DavidL said:

Telegraph reporting today that the UK is attracting more venture capital for tech companies than Germany and France put together and more than twice as much as we did 2016.
This is one of the major reasons that the UK will outperform the EZ over the next decade.

But apparantly less so than 2017 where London outpaced all our competitors by quite a margin. We'll just have to see what damage Brexit does.

Benpointer

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Under which PM was the highest ever UK inflation recorded?

Wilson in 1975

https://www.icalculator.info/inflation/historical-inflation-rates.html

Fair cop - I'd forgotten about that one! ...I was thinking of 22% it reached in 1980.

(Looks for egg-on-face emoji)

Nigelb

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

On the US race, this is still Biden's to lose. His biggest strength isn't momentum - it's that there is no one else in the "big 4" that is anywhere near on the black vote.

I'd have this as :.

Biden

Gap

Warren

Fresh air

Sanders
Buttigieg

30 furlongs

Klobuchar/Harris

No chance

Yang/Bloomberg

right now.

What about Hillary?

Alternate universe.

Sandpit

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.

noneoftheabove

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

The thing is curries and mops have them steaming ahead in the polls. Why change a winning formula?

I dont know, perhaps the self respect that can come from being honest, accountable and decent might be more important to some than others.

Wow, just wow. You’ll be telling us next that Spurs should keep playing fast, exciting football even if they lose too many games as a result. No doubt “park the bus” Mourinho will give that careful consideration.

Yes if I was a Spurs fan I would prefer fast attacking football to Mourinho! Their football in 2019 has not been particularly fast and attacking though, part of the reason for the sacking. If the football was good and the results had been unlucky Pochettino probably would have got longer.

The point I was making (despite the bruises of M’s time at OT which was deeply depressing) is that the object is to win. To date the Tory campaign looks ruthlessly focused on that in a way it never did in 2017.

I know. And the point I am making is that winning should be about more than a personal ambition to be PM or to win. It should be about a coherent and deliverable plan to make the country a better place.

PeterMannion

Jo Boden

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

The Tories were never in power in the 1970, they also did not (given they were not in power obvioisly) pursue policies that bankrupted the country leading to the losing an election.

You all clearly have false memories.

None of the government's in the 1970s were great, it took Thatcher and Major to reduce inflation, Thatcher to take union power and Thatcher to save the country from bankruptcy and raise GDP per capita

Under which PM was the highest ever UK inflation recorded?

Wilson in 1975

https://www.icalculator.info/inflation/historical-inflation-rates.html

Under the great inflation reducer, £10 in 1979 would cost £22.26 in 1990. No competition.

https://tinyurl.com/y85wtgs5

OnlyLivingBoy

squareroot2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

squareroot2 said:

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies.
My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?

Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling

I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.

Benpointer

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.

PeterMannion

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!

From the BBC

"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".

In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.

So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?

"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.

But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out

Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

But Johnson DID say it was £500 per year each year

AramintaMoonbeamQC

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.

The charges are horrific, absolutely shocking.

squareroot2

OnlyLivingBoy said:

squareroot2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

squareroot2 said:

Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.

That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies.
My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?

Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling

I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.

Well you would say that wouldn't you....

Endillion

noneoftheabove said:

Endillion said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.

That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.

"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."

But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."

Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.

They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.

Well if they eventually bother to publish a manifesto rather than talk about favourite curries and playing with mops we might have some detail.

Sensible to let labour and lib dems put their manifesto in the public domain first.

Some talk it will be on sunday

There's just no upside for the Tories in putting their manifesto in the public domain early, thus allowing the opposition parties more time to deliberately mischaracterise selected policies.

Why is it in the interests of Labour to go before the Tories? In the future will we end up with a stand off and neither gets round to even giving us a manifesto?

There's probably a game theory solution to that. At some point, first mover advantage kicks in. It's about being able to get your messages across without having them wantonly distorted by the media, and your opponents social media dark arts experts.

Parties getting more disciplined at driving the message home would also be helpful. hence the pre-leaking of the key commitments, and possibly the Tories are releasing on Sunday to help candidates who still have other jobs (or family commitments) be more able to get their arguments together.

eek

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.

I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.

eek

Now we know Salmond is going to be the main news story today - is it likely that the General Election is going to be on the front page of any paper before I receive my postal vote? Supposedly I will receive it on Monday.

Nigelb

I like the way you managed to get Biden's name wrong, Mike.

Pretty well deserved after his debate performance.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471440-as-buttigieg-rises-biden-is-still-the-target
..."We should build on ObamaCare, provide the plan I put forward before anybody in here, adding a Medicare option in that plan and not make people choose. Allow people to choose, I should say," Biden said, hitting plans from Sanders and Warren to expand Medicaid to all Americans.

Later, he claimed to have been endorsed by the "only" African American woman ever elected to the United States Senate — while standing several podiums away from the second African American woman elected to the United States Senate...

Benpointer

eek said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister

If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.

I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.

I agree. But due process and all that.

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Speaking personally I would legalise both the strong and weak stuff and sell it through legal mechanisms and not gangs. And let HMRC join the fight against any illegal, unregulated and untaxed sales.

Lets compare with alcohol. I don't know any alcoholics who abuse low strength beer, though that may be what they started drinking. It is high strength drinks, sometimes beer or wine but most especially spirits which are the biggest problem. But we don't criminalise spirits - and we offer education and health services to those who struggle.

I don't see anyone arguing to legalise because it did them no harm, I see arguments to legalise because prohibition has failed miserably and is leading to drug gangs.

Accurately describing the failure of a current policy is not in itself - without more - a good argument for doing the opposite.

At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.

We have evidence from hundreds of countries across the globe and a hundred years of history of what is and what is not working.

What "harm involved" are you talking about? And are you just restricting to the side effects of the cannabis itself? Or are you including in "harm involved" the stabbings and other fatal and non-fatal gang violence that prohibition is causing both now and has caused historically?

We have been debating this issue now for decades, we don't have relatively little or no knowledge in this area.

Its the presenting a fixed opinion as potentially changeable when it clearly is not. It is very telling that someone I personally find exceedingly reasonable and extremely persuasive even on matters which I disagree with them about is so unconvincing on this issue, and it's because the argument about wanting more information is equivalent to that of a NIMBY. Its clearly not the main objection, but it's the 'reasonable' fallback.

MarqueeMark

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.

14 sexual charges altogether

In sex cases prosecutors talk of the power of 3. If you have 3 complainers alleging similar conduct then even if one of them proves to be a bit suspect juries convict. 10 ? Jeez.

10 is also a lot of women to put through the ordeal of giving evidence against a powerful man with expensive lawyers. If Salmond knows he is guilty of at least some of these charges, pleading not guilty to them is a despicable thing to inflict.