politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Commons seats spread betting markets appear to have settled down with very little movement
Above are the latest Commons seats spreads from SportingIndex which have shown little movement this week. A way of looking at this is that this is where current betting money is going and to me, at least, there are few obvious bargains.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
I've said for years Employers NI should be abolished - if it was all this IR35 stuff could go away. The problem is that many companies are deliberately attempting to dodge Employers NI. I suspect if Employers NI were to be abolished it could result in an increase in Employees NI and Income Tax and a reduction in benefits paid out.
I have heard of many dodgy businesses employing people and paying them in cash more than what their payslip says - in order to dodge Employers NI, Employees NI, Income Tax and potentially allow the employee to claim more benefits. As both parties benefit from this fraud nobody says anything. This is an unfair burden then on competitor businesses that are not dodgy. There are of course potential punishments for both parties if they get caught but people commit fraud because they don't expect to be caught.
If Employers NI were abolished then there would be an incentive still for the Employee to commit fraud but the risk/reward ratio for the Employer would be dramatically changed. You would be removing the direct incentive on the Employer to do this.
EDIT: Has the paragraph spacing issue been fixed?
The problem is that Employer NI generates a ridiculously large amount of tax. The IFS ( https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf ) estimated it was £126.5 billion in 2016/17.
Given that employer NI is probably over half of that the money cannot be found from elsewhere.
Equally most people involved in policy in HMRC don't understand how the real world works. When it was implemented in the public sector they continued to insist that everyone was to be inside even after all the architects on the making tax digital projects left due to travel costs.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
This is like Leave.EU activists gatecrashing a UKIP rally, inviting the press, and sticking union jacks and rude notices about Jean-Claude Juncker on the podium.
Brexit Party not to win a seat 5/4 Brexit party to win Heywood & Middleton 33/1 Lib Dem’s 10-19 seats 4/1 Conservatives under 340.5 seats 11/10 Con maj 4/5
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
Nigel says: "Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics". For some it is - an "identity appendage" I call it.
Don`t let that cloud the massive issue that is the destruction of the rainforest for cattle ranching, and the biodiversity loss that this entails.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
There is an interesting section in Steven Pinker's latest book about this. Basically if we follow the eco-facists demands, massive reduction in meat, no GM, going back to "natural" foods (this in itself is hugely problematic as what most of them think are natural aren't). The amount of farmland required will have to expand massively and at a time when it is actually shrinking.
So to save the planet, we will actually have to chop down more trees to make space for more farmland.
Why would they target the LDs who are very big on climate change action?
Maybe for the same reason they are targeting the UK and not countries like China.
I wonder what the response would be if a load of UK protestors flew to China to protest about climate change instead of doing it locally.....I am sure no one would possibly consider complaining about them taking flights.....or take the piss if they took a boat instead.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
Curse of the new thread, but you're as good a target as any... I know a fair few vegans, and none of them would give the slightest of fucks what you would think of them or "thrust it" at you. Unlike the sanctimonious tossers on here who absolutely have to tell us how great their views are and how wrong the other person is....
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Why would they target the LDs who are very big on climate change action?
Maybe for the same reason they are targeting the UK and not countries like China.
I wonder what the response would be if a load of UK protestors flew to China to protest about climate change instead of doing it locally.....I am sure no one would possibly consider complaining about them taking flights.....or take the piss if they took a boat instead.
Brexit Party not to win a seat 5/4 Brexit party to win Heywood & Middleton 33/1 Lib Dem’s 10-19 seats 4/1 Conservatives under 340.5 seats 11/10 Con maj 4/5
Serously Isam - is that all you have bet on this GE? I`m on my third side of A4.
Brexit Party not to win a seat 5/4 Brexit party to win Heywood & Middleton 33/1 Lib Dem’s 10-19 seats 4/1 Conservatives under 340.5 seats 11/10 Con maj 4/5
LD 10-19 seats at 4/1 : well done. Fantastic price!
Silly sloganeering. If you have finite assets, to allocate more to those with less you necessarily have to take from those with more. There's local pockets across which that is not necessarily true, and special rules might temporarily apply to pretendy assets like money, but overall it cannot not be the case.
They seem to manage a more balanced society in the Nordic countries. Their rich people appear to be happy being just wealthy rather than wanting to have it all and have everybody else poor. The UK is a sh**hole.
I have some experience of Scandinavia. It is rather more nuanced than that. There is a much stronger racist anti-foreigner sentiment there, for instance. I'm always struck by the obsession with migrants in the various Scandi-noir series.
I’d like to see some objective academic studies before I started to believe that Scandinavians have “much stronger racist anti-foreigner sentiment” than, for example, English people. My experience, as a Scandinavian, is quite the opposite. We are very kind and tolerant towards non-Scandinavians...
@Burgessian is perhaps thinking of the Swedish Democrats ?
The difference is that the Scandinavians, due to PR voting systems, have separate parties, whereas England has “wings” within parties. Eg. in Sweden there are: - two LibDem parties (urban and rural) - three Labour parties (centre-left, left and feminist) - two Green parties (left and centrist) - three conservative parties (social conservatives, economic liberals and anti-migration)
So, while the Danish People’s Party and the Sweden Democrats are highly visible, they are matched, indeed exceeded, by anti-migration sentiment deeply imbedded in the Tory party in England, due to FPTP.
Just shows how far up their own false lefty view of the UK Labour have become that they use Lavery to front this. He's pure poison and has never explained why he got the huge bung.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
The problem is that Employer NI generates a ridiculously large amount of tax. The IFS ( https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf ) estimated it was £126.5 billion in 2016/17.
Given that employer NI is probably over half of that the money cannot be found from elsewhere.
Equally most people involved in policy in HMRC don't understand how the real world works. When it was implemented in the public sector they continued to insist that everyone was to be inside even after all the architects on the making tax digital projects left due to travel costs.
It does generate a serious amount of money, which is why as long as it does they will need to clamp down on IR35 because it is a tax dodging scam by many. But it is a seriously bad tax, discouraging employment and encouraging extra benefit payments and a reduction in other taxes received. A long term plan should be developed to seek to abolish it.
Incidentally does the tax receipts the government receives include the payments the public sector are making which the government is essentially paying back to itself? Because if so there would be no net fiscal difference if that element of the tax was abolished as the government would receive less tax but pay out [to itself] fewer payments surely?
£126.5 bn is a ludicrously large sum of money. Lets say we're talking about £70 bn from Employers NI. If public sector payments are netted out that may come down. If benefits go down due to a reduction in fraud (which IMHO is endemic in certain industries) and Employees NI and Income Tax receipts go up you're now talking even less.
As most companies would include Employers NI quite rightly in their wage budget if the tax were abolished many companies could afford an increase in wages to their employees paid out of the savings from this. That then could lead to even more Employees NI and Income Tax receipts. It would also again lead to an even bigger reduction in benefits.
Ultimately once all the consequentials are taken into account I expect net Employers NI would bring in less than say fuel duty [another issue the government needs to tackle as we switch to electric vehicles].
On topic, I would be buying Tory seats at 344 (and selling Labour at 215). It seems like this is an election where the Tory vote could be very efficient. They are picking up ex-Labour Leavers in the Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and North. While they are losing some of the Tory remainers in the South, I suspect there will be enough wealthy types worried about the risk of Corbyn getting it that they will hold their noses and vote Tory. Thus, there might be a lot of reduced majorities in the wealthier parts but few seats actually lost.
For the Lib Dems, it is a tough one to call. The campaign has been disappointing and Jo Swinson has missed a big open goal to position the Lib Dems as the credible centre-left opposition. However, there may be some specific seats, such as St Albans and Manchester Withington, where they can grind out a win whilst keeping most of their core (i.e. ex-the switchers) seats. I wouldn't bet on their total.
For Labour, I just do not see how this will be a night of anything other than pain. They do not seem to be getting the same, ahem, momentum as 2017 or the turning of Corbyn into a cult figure. Having said that, if you are on their Marxist wing, seeing Labour reduced to 150 MPs may not be a bad thing. You would presumably see a lot of anti-Corbyn MPs go and the Marxists may fancy their chances of getting their candidates selected for the next election. Thus, there really would be a permanent shift leftwards in the Labour party.
Why would they target the LDs who are very big on climate change action?
Maybe for the same reason they are targeting the UK and not countries like China.
I wonder what the response would be if a load of UK protestors flew to China to protest about climate change instead of doing it locally.....I am sure no one would possibly consider complaining about them taking flights.....or take the piss if they took a boat instead.
They could protest outside the Chinese Embassy.
They could seek to boycott products made in China.
Sorry, new thread, so cut and posted my previous post to get max attention, if at all Lincoln, a very close fight indeed
Pros and Cons, for Labour Karen Lee Pros: -Student vote - around 1500 -Brexit Party to split Leave votes -Possible tactical voting from Greens and even LD Karen has been more hands on and visible in Lincon, with a more down to earth nature. Being a nurse also helps, given the way the public services are at the moment. Cons: -Her biggest threat comes from being strongly remain in a 55-45 leave Constituency. A lot of people feel let down,many even calling her a traitor. How much of this would translate into votes, time will tell - As usual JC, but he was there in 2017 too. Many people have got used to him, like a groin rash.
Conservative: Karl McCartney Pros: strongly Brexit, will he polarise the 55% vote? Then he wins it. Cons: quite a few , actually. -Has been MP for 7 years, so has a lot to answer, when he promises new stuff, like park and ride -Lot of people have been hurt by 9 years of austerity, so again on the back foot - Has this impresion of being arrogant and little too full of himself. Read his facebook page, with mostly negative comments from the public - Was involved in the expenses scandal as well as 'hiring' his wife. People have not forgotten that. He has a corrupt image, in age of austerity
So, overall it's going to be a close fight, with Karen slightly ahead. However, if the Tories had selected a clean newbie, with not much baggage as Karl, then most likely the Tories had this in the bag. My verdict, close win for Karen, less than 1000 votes . Please feel free to disagree. The red wall in the North has been shaken. Whether it will crumble, will depend on many factors and not only on Brexit.
Silly sloganeering. If you have finite assets, to allocate more to those with less you necessarily have to take from those with more. There's local pockets across which that is not necessarily true, and special rules might temporarily apply to pretendy assets like money, but overall it cannot not be the case.
They seem to manage a more balanced society in the Nordic countries. Their rich people appear to be happy being just wealthy rather than wanting to have it all and have everybody else poor. The UK is a sh**hole.
I have some experience of Scandinavia. It is rather more nuanced than that. There is a much stronger racist anti-foreigner sentiment there, for instance. I'm always struck by the obsession with migrants in the various Scandi-noir series.
I’d like to see some objective academic studies before I started to believe that Scandinavians have “much stronger racist anti-foreigner sentiment” than, for example, English people. My experience, as a Scandinavian, is quite the opposite. We are very kind and tolerant towards non-Scandinavians...
@Burgessian is perhaps thinking of the Swedish Democrats ?
The difference is that the Scandinavians, due to PR voting systems, have separate parties, whereas England has “wings” within parties. Eg. in Sweden there are: - two LibDem parties (urban and rural) - three Labour parties (centre-left, left and feminist) - two Green parties (left and centrist) - three conservative parties (social conservatives, economic liberals and anti-migration)
So, while the Danish People’s Party and the Sweden Democrats are highly visible, they are matched, indeed exceeded, by anti-migration sentiment deeply imbedded in the Tory party in England, due to FPTP.
There are not three Labour parties. All that remains now is one far left Labour Party incorporating a dwindling bunch of useful idiots.
Sorry, new thread, so cut and posted my previous post to get max attention, if at all Lincoln, a very close fight indeed
Pros and Cons, for Labour Karen Lee Pros: -Student vote - around 1500 -Brexit Party to split Leave votes -Possible tactical voting from Greens and even LD Karen has been more hands on and visible in Lincon, with a more down to earth nature. Being a nurse also helps, given the way the public services are at the moment. Cons: -Her biggest threat comes from being strongly remain in a 55-45 leave Constituency. A lot of people feel let down,many even calling her a traitor. How much of this would translate into votes, time will tell - As usual JC, but he was there in 2017 too. Many people have got used to him, like a groin rash.
Conservative: Karl McCartney Pros: strongly Brexit, will he polarise the 55% vote? Then he wins it. Cons: quite a few , actually. -Has been MP for 7 years, so has a lot to answer, when he promises new stuff, like park and ride -Lot of people have been hurt by 9 years of austerity, so again on the back foot - Has this impresion of being arrogant and little too full of himself. Read his facebook page, with mostly negative comments from the public - Was involved in the expenses scandal as well as 'hiring' his wife. People have not forgotten that. He has a corrupt image, in age of austerity
So, overall it's going to be a close fight, with Karen slightly ahead. However, if the Tories had selected a clean newbie, with not much baggage as Karl, then most likely the Tories had this in the bag. My verdict, close win for Karen, less than 1000 votes . Please feel free to disagree. The red wall in the North has been shaken. Whether it will crumble, will depend on many factors and not only on Brexit.
No need to apologise - interesting insight, thanks.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
Thanks Nigel - I entirely agree with you!
I’ll now have to take back all the rude things I said about Nigels on the previous thread 😉
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
The other day I found myself considering vegetarianism for the first time. It was after I saw a video of a truly revolting halal slaughterhouse, I think in India or Pakistan. The treatment of the animals was harrowing. Obscene. I won’t even link to the vid, it’s too upsetting. You can find it on Twitter if you want.
I haven’t made the leap to vegetarianism yet. Might never do so. But I am now taking much greater care to find out where my meat comes from. If I can’t be sure, I won’t buy it or eat it.
I can do this because I am wealthy. I know it is difficult if you’re not.
Long term the future must be lab grown meat, cruelty free. Until we get there one of the easy and necessary things we have to do is ban non-stun halal and kosher slaughter. It is vile.
Yes, a settled view has now, er, settled. Con majority of low to mid 2 digits. Won via gains in the north/midlands. Comfortable. No landslide. It's probably right. The risk, IMO, is on the Con upside. I think a big Con win is far more likely than a hung parliament. So if I was not already long I would buy at these levels. Certainly not a sell. Could lose everything you've worked your whole life for if you sell. Hoping we will get another MRP before polling day?
Re veganism, if enforced I declare i would become a poacher and hunter of rabbits and birds and a stealth fisherman so, ya know, the rozzers better mark me up now. Extinction rebellion - spackers. Does anyone support these cretins? Ian Lavery - his late attempt to make himself a pantomime villain = watch Wansbeck
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
Given the figures in this paper on efficiency (yes, one paper from quick google, I'm sure other papers will have different figures) you'd need an awful lot of current pasture land not suitable for anything else: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002
To be clear though, I'm not advocating total veganism. I'm not a vegan, I eat meat (although not a great deal, probably twice per week on average, although it varies).
I think us meat eaters should be grateful to the vegetarians and vegans out there for increasing our share (by decreasing theirs) of the global sustainable budget for meat production ;-)
Re veganism, if enforced I declare i would become a poacher and hunter of rabbits and birds and a stealth fisherman so, ya know, the rozzers better mark me up now. Extinction rebellion - spackers. Does anyone support these cretins? Ian Lavery - his late attempt to make himself a pantomime villain = watch Wansbeck
You are aware of the origins of the word "spacker"?
Re veganism, if enforced I declare i would become a poacher and hunter of rabbits and birds and a stealth fisherman so, ya know, the rozzers better mark me up now. Extinction rebellion - spackers. Does anyone support these cretins? Ian Lavery - his late attempt to make himself a pantomime villain = watch Wansbeck
You are aware of the origins of the word "spacker"?
Same as the origin of the word spaz I'd guess. Both now used in a mocking way to denote idiots. Similar migration of language that means 'gay' as an insult does not mean 'homosexual'
This is like Leave.EU activists gatecrashing a UKIP rally, inviting the press, and sticking union jacks and rude notices about Jean-Claude Juncker on the podium.
I think we established last time around that XR are a bunch of middle class idiots with no real idea what they are trying to achieve.
Some of them are going to get badly hurt if they keep it up, not just a duffing up by the angry commuters of Canning Town.
Regarding the thread, there seems more of an upside than a downside to Con 344/338. With Farage giving the Conservatives a free run in their 317 seats, this puts an effective floor under their seat count, even if the polls turn against them in the last week (which is harder with a lot of PVs already having been cast now). On the other hand, should the polls move slightly in the Conservatives direction and/or revert to their historic pattern of tending to understate the Conservative vote share, there is still an outside possibility of a Con landslide.
I can do this because I am wealthy. I know it is difficult if you’re not
Average male model salary is *pause, google* £40-50,000/year. On PB especially given all the champagne socialists, that does not make you wealthy. Unless you are in the Gandy class in which case we would all be very interested in seeing some of your high profile campaigns. Just give us one or two as a taster.
Same as the origin of the word spaz I'd guess. Both now used in a mocking way to denote idiots. Similar migration of language that means 'gay' as an insult does not mean 'homosexual'
Why would they target the LDs who are very big on climate change action?
Maybe for the same reason they are targeting the UK and not countries like China.
I wonder what the response would be if a load of UK protestors flew to China to protest about climate change instead of doing it locally.....I am sure no one would possibly consider complaining about them taking flights.....or take the piss if they took a boat instead.
They could protest outside the Chinese Embassy.
They could seek to boycott products made in China.
They have certainly protested at the Brazilian embassy, no idea if they have done or are planning to protest at the Chinese Embassy.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
Last night's BBC4 "Secret Life of Farm Animals" showed a herd of cattle essentially left to their own devices (somewhere in the UK), and they did remarkably well.
Labour are rising in the south and the tories rising in the north = Tory landslide
Problem is are we predicting a spring tide when it may well translate into a neap tide for Labour in the South and for the Tories in the Midlands / North
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
Given the figures in this paper on efficiency (yes, one paper from quick google, I'm sure other papers will have different figures) you'd need an awful lot of current pasture land not suitable for anything else: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002
To be clear though, I'm not advocating total veganism. I'm not a vegan, I eat meat (although not a great deal, probably twice per week on average, although it varies).
I think us meat eaters should be grateful to the vegetarians and vegans out there for increasing our share (by decreasing theirs) of the global sustainable budget for meat production ;-)
I have nothing against Vegans. But anyone who has lived in Africa or the Middle East knows that there are huge areas of pasture or grazing lands on this planet not suitable for anything else. Most of the Arabian peninsula, Mongolia and the Central Asian steppe, and large swaths of Africa, Australia, not to mention mountain sides.
The Dust Bowl in the US was created when European settlers tried to turn pasture into arable land.
Animal grazing lands are not fungible with arable lands for the most part.
Sorry, new thread, so cut and posted my previous post to get max attention, if at all Lincoln, a very close fight indeed
Pros and Cons, for Labour Karen Lee Pros: -Student vote - around 1500 -Brexit Party to split Leave votes -Possible tactical voting from Greens and even LD Karen has been more hands on and visible in Lincon, with a more down to earth nature. Being a nurse also helps, given the way the public services are at the moment. Cons: -Her biggest threat comes from being strongly remain in a 55-45 leave Constituency. A lot of people feel let down,many even calling her a traitor. How much of this would translate into votes, time will tell - As usual JC, but he was there in 2017 too. Many people have got used to him, like a groin rash.
Conservative: Karl McCartney Pros: strongly Brexit, will he polarise the 55% vote? Then he wins it. Cons: quite a few , actually. -Has been MP for 7 years, so has a lot to answer, when he promises new stuff, like park and ride -Lot of people have been hurt by 9 years of austerity, so again on the back foot - Has this impresion of being arrogant and little too full of himself. Read his facebook page, with mostly negative comments from the public - Was involved in the expenses scandal as well as 'hiring' his wife. People have not forgotten that. He has a corrupt image, in age of austerity
So, overall it's going to be a close fight, with Karen slightly ahead. However, if the Tories had selected a clean newbie, with not much baggage as Karl, then most likely the Tories had this in the bag. My verdict, close win for Karen, less than 1000 votes . Please feel free to disagree. The red wall in the North has been shaken. Whether it will crumble, will depend on many factors and not only on Brexit.
Interesting, thanks. McCartney comes over as an absolute pillock, so it would be pleasing to see him get punted next Thursday night.
Re veganism, if enforced I declare i would become a poacher and hunter of rabbits and birds and a stealth fisherman so, ya know, the rozzers better mark me up now. Extinction rebellion - spackers. Does anyone support these cretins? Ian Lavery - his late attempt to make himself a pantomime villain = watch Wansbeck
You are aware of the origins of the word "spacker"?
Same as the origin of the word spaz I'd guess. Both now used in a mocking way to denote idiots. Similar migration of language that means 'gay' as an insult does not mean 'homosexual'
Kids under 16 do not understand the pejorative usage of the word ‘gay’. It’s fallen out of fashion. True story.
I can do this because I am wealthy. I know it is difficult if you’re not
Average male model salary is *pause, google* £40-50,000/year. On PB especially given all the champagne socialists, that does not make you wealthy. Unless you are in the Gandy class in which case we would all be very interested in seeing some of your high profile campaigns. Just give us one or two as a taster.
Not sure what you’re trying to prove with this analysis as most writers make SFA too.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
Last night's BBC4 "Secret Life of Farm Animals" showed a herd of cattle essentially left to their own devices (somewhere in the UK), and they did remarkably well.
Left to their own devices on a farm? Sure they would. They're rather content animals that live a happy life until they get turned into a delicious steak. Its the circle of life.
If the farmer needed their grazing land back to provide for vegan food though what do you think would happen to them? Would they be allowed to graze or would they be slaughtered?
And then, strictly not "1930s" there was the annexation of the Baltics and Bessarabia (today's Moldova in most part).
Or indeed the liquidation of the Buddhist clergy in the Soviet satellite states of Tannu Tuva (later annexed to the USSR) and Mongolia, which was in the 30s.
Sorry, new thread, so cut and posted my previous post to get max attention, if at all Lincoln, a very close fight indeed
Pros and Cons, for Labour Karen Lee Pros: -Student vote - around 1500 -Brexit Party to split Leave votes -Possible tactical voting from Greens and even LD Karen has been more hands on and visible in Lincon, with a more down to earth nature. Being a nurse also helps, given the way the public services are at the moment. Cons: -Her biggest threat comes from being strongly remain in a 55-45 leave Constituency. A lot of people feel let down,many even calling her a traitor. How much of this would translate into votes, time will tell - As usual JC, but he was there in 2017 too. Many people have got used to him, like a groin rash.
Conservative: Karl McCartney Pros: strongly Brexit, will he polarise the 55% vote? Then he wins it. Cons: quite a few , actually. -Has been MP for 7 years, so has a lot to answer, when he promises new stuff, like park and ride -Lot of people have been hurt by 9 years of austerity, so again on the back foot - Has this impresion of being arrogant and little too full of himself. Read his facebook page, with mostly negative comments from the public - Was involved in the expenses scandal as well as 'hiring' his wife. People have not forgotten that. He has a corrupt image, in age of austerity
So, overall it's going to be a close fight, with Karen slightly ahead. However, if the Tories had selected a clean newbie, with not much baggage as Karl, then most likely the Tories had this in the bag. My verdict, close win for Karen, less than 1000 votes . Please feel free to disagree. The red wall in the North has been shaken. Whether it will crumble, will depend on many factors and not only on Brexit.
Interesting, thanks. McCartney comes over as an absolute pillock, so it would be pleasing to see him get punted next Thursday night.
Claim to fame: I was once mistaken for Karl McCartney.
Not sure what you’re trying to prove with this analysis as most writers make SFA too.
True. Most serious writers do, unless for some reason "the public" gets caught (eg. Mantel, Atwood). Low common denominator/airport novel writers have a better chance at it though.
Same as the origin of the word spaz I'd guess. Both now used in a mocking way to denote idiots. Similar migration of language that means 'gay' as an insult does not mean 'homosexual'
I'd have to disagree with you on that.
Fair enough. Disagreement is a fairly standard part of discussion.
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
There is an interesting section in Steven Pinker's latest book about this. Basically if we follow the eco-facists demands, massive reduction in meat, no GM, going back to "natural" foods (this in itself is hugely problematic as what most of them think are natural aren't). The amount of farmland required will have to expand massively and at a time when it is actually shrinking.
So to save the planet, we will actually have to chop down more trees to make space for more farmland.
The only way to really save the planet is to adopt a Logan's Run rule about age, and impose harsh controls on procreation.
Regarding the thread, there seems more of an upside than a downside to Con 344/338. With Farage giving the Conservatives a free run in their 317 seats, this puts an effective floor under their seat count, even if the polls turn against them in the last week (which is harder with a lot of PVs already having been cast now). On the other hand, should the polls move slightly in the Conservatives direction and/or revert to their historic pattern of tending to understate the Conservative vote share, there is still an outside possibility of a Con landslide.
Agreed, if the fixed odds majority price is right, the spreads on tory seats feel like quite a good buy.
Left to their own devices on a farm? Sure they would. They're rather content animals that live a happy life until they get turned into a delicious steak. Its the circle of life.
If the farmer needed their grazing land back to provide for vegan food though what do you think would happen to them? Would they be allowed to graze or would they be slaughtered?
I didn't see the documentary, but perhaps the cattle left to their own devices are those at Knepp, which was formerly an intensive arable farm?
As it happens I'm about half-way through Isabella Tree's book on this. It is absolutely fascinating, and also superbly well written - she manages to weave quite a complex set of strands of the story and science into a beautiful and thought-provoking narrative. Very highly recommended - put it on your Xmas list!
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
The question I've never heard a vegetarian/vegan answer is what they expect to happen to all the animals we farm if overnight people stopped eating meat?
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
The other day I found myself considering vegetarianism for the first time. It was after I saw a video of a truly revolting halal slaughterhouse, I think in India or Pakistan. The treatment of the animals was harrowing. Obscene. I won’t even link to the vid, it’s too upsetting. You can find it on Twitter if you want.
I haven’t made the leap to vegetarianism yet. Might never do so. But I am now taking much greater care to find out where my meat comes from. If I can’t be sure, I won’t buy it or eat it.
I can do this because I am wealthy. I know it is difficult if you’re not.
Long term the future must be lab grown meat, cruelty free. Until we get there one of the easy and necessary things we have to do is ban non-stun halal and kosher slaughter. It is vile.
Interesting interview on the ethics of eating meat
From last thread: Reply to Casino Royale on veganism:
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
As a meat eater...
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Given that herbivores eat some crops that humans cannot digest, and that some of those crops grow in locations that are not suitable for growing crops for humans, I suspect a move to total veganism would reduce food production both in terms of absolute production volumes and in terms of efficiency, resulting in more habitat destruction.
Spot on. Most of the problem is in intensively farmed cattle, particularly in Brazil and it’s worse with artificial feed compared to real grass. And the methane belching whilst an issue is a tad overblown.
What we need is better sourcing, labelling and information (and less ideology) so consumers can exercise balanced choice.
Comments
https://tacticalvote.getvoting.org/latest-news/
Swarm of bees glued to Jo Swinson's bus.
It is not often I am in agreement with you CR, but I am on this. Veganism is the equivalent of evangelical fundamentalist religion. It's advocates give the impression of believing themselves to be morally superior to the rest of the human race, and some are highly militant, objectionable and sometimes violent.
It is also highly questionable as to whether veganism is "sustainable" from an environmental perspective. A wholesale move to the production of vegan produce would have to destroy many ecosystems that depend on grazing, and would make genuine organic production largely unviable. It would also almost certainly lead to mass starvation if it were possible to immediately implement. Veganism is a fad for self righteous eccentrics.
Given that employer NI is probably over half of that the money cannot be found from elsewhere.
Equally most people involved in policy in HMRC don't understand how the real world works. When it was implemented in the public sector they continued to insist that everyone was to be inside even after all the architects on the making tax digital projects left due to travel costs.
"Yorkshire Deserves Better"
Interestingly, they are advocating Net Zero by 2030, with investment in hydrogen. I could be tempted...
Do they expect farmers to relinquish their fields and let sheep and cows spend the rest of their days naturally grazing until they die of old age? Or would there be a mass slaughter of all the sheep and cows as the farmers look to change their fields over to whatever the vegan/vegetarian populace want to eat?
I expect it is the latter and I don't see how that would be any better. So I'm going to continue eating meat - to avoid a mass slaughter of animals.
Climate is a serious issue. XR are not a serious group with serious solutions.
This is like Leave.EU activists gatecrashing a UKIP rally, inviting the press, and sticking union jacks and rude notices about Jean-Claude Juncker on the podium.
Remain are being out campaigned by those they call thick, again!
Brexit Party not to win a seat 5/4
Brexit party to win Heywood & Middleton 33/1
Lib Dem’s 10-19 seats 4/1
Conservatives under 340.5 seats 11/10
Con maj 4/5
Don`t let that cloud the massive issue that is the destruction of the rainforest for cattle ranching, and the biodiversity loss that this entails.
So to save the planet, we will actually have to chop down more trees to make space for more farmland.
I know a fair few vegans, and none of them would give the slightest of fucks what you would think of them or "thrust it" at you. Unlike the sanctimonious tossers on here who absolutely have to tell us how great their views are and how wrong the other person is....
https://youtu.be/LpSRG2HZW3o
Three of my friends/colleagues are vegan. I doubt anyone who does not know them quite wel knows they are vegan (other than a few restuarant staff who may have been asked questions about ingredients). Outside of people you know, you're unlikely to know that 'quiet' vegans are vegan. None of the three has ever lectured me or tried to change my ways.
Some vegans are aresholes. Some meat eaters are aresholes. People are just people and labelling a whole group in one way is rarely useful or fair.
On sustainability, its more efficient to grow crops than grow crops and feed them to animals before eating the animals. That doesn't mean a wholesale and rapid change would be a good idea and it would undoubtedly harm (or at least change, hamr can be subjective) some habitats and harm some other plants/species. Stopping meat production and growing more crops would likely be bad for global grass populations ;-)
Note to editors: Sunil has been a vegetarian for 28 years (since his mid-teens)
No.
It might not end well.
- two LibDem parties (urban and rural)
- three Labour parties (centre-left, left and feminist)
- two Green parties (left and centrist)
- three conservative parties (social conservatives, economic liberals and anti-migration)
So, while the Danish People’s Party and the Sweden Democrats are highly visible, they are matched, indeed exceeded, by anti-migration sentiment deeply imbedded in the Tory party in England, due to FPTP.
Says the man who buys a porche.
https://leave.eu
Or rather not a thing.
https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1202164383151009793?s=20
Incidentally does the tax receipts the government receives include the payments the public sector are making which the government is essentially paying back to itself? Because if so there would be no net fiscal difference if that element of the tax was abolished as the government would receive less tax but pay out [to itself] fewer payments surely?
£126.5 bn is a ludicrously large sum of money. Lets say we're talking about £70 bn from Employers NI. If public sector payments are netted out that may come down. If benefits go down due to a reduction in fraud (which IMHO is endemic in certain industries) and Employees NI and Income Tax receipts go up you're now talking even less.
As most companies would include Employers NI quite rightly in their wage budget if the tax were abolished many companies could afford an increase in wages to their employees paid out of the savings from this. That then could lead to even more Employees NI and Income Tax receipts. It would also again lead to an even bigger reduction in benefits.
Ultimately once all the consequentials are taken into account I expect net Employers NI would bring in less than say fuel duty [another issue the government needs to tackle as we switch to electric vehicles].
On topic, I would be buying Tory seats at 344 (and selling Labour at 215). It seems like this is an election where the Tory vote could be very efficient. They are picking up ex-Labour Leavers in the Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and North. While they are losing some of the Tory remainers in the South, I suspect there will be enough wealthy types worried about the risk of Corbyn getting it that they will hold their noses and vote Tory. Thus, there might be a lot of reduced majorities in the wealthier parts but few seats actually lost.
For the Lib Dems, it is a tough one to call. The campaign has been disappointing and Jo Swinson has missed a big open goal to position the Lib Dems as the credible centre-left opposition. However, there may be some specific seats, such as St Albans and Manchester Withington, where they can grind out a win whilst keeping most of their core (i.e. ex-the switchers) seats. I wouldn't bet on their total.
For Labour, I just do not see how this will be a night of anything other than pain. They do not seem to be getting the same, ahem, momentum as 2017 or the turning of Corbyn into a cult figure. Having said that, if you are on their Marxist wing, seeing Labour reduced to 150 MPs may not be a bad thing. You would presumably see a lot of anti-Corbyn MPs go and the Marxists may fancy their chances of getting their candidates selected for the next election. Thus, there really would be a permanent shift leftwards in the Labour party.
They could seek to boycott products made in China.
Lincoln, a very close fight indeed
Pros and Cons, for Labour Karen Lee
Pros:
-Student vote - around 1500
-Brexit Party to split Leave votes
-Possible tactical voting from Greens and even LD
Karen has been more hands on and visible in Lincon, with a more down to earth nature. Being a nurse also helps, given the way the public services are at the moment.
Cons:
-Her biggest threat comes from being strongly remain in a 55-45 leave Constituency. A lot of people feel let down,many even calling her a traitor. How much of this would translate into votes, time will tell
- As usual JC, but he was there in 2017 too. Many people have got used to him, like a groin rash.
Conservative: Karl McCartney
Pros: strongly Brexit, will he polarise the 55% vote? Then he wins it.
Cons: quite a few , actually.
-Has been MP for 7 years, so has a lot to answer, when he promises new stuff, like park and ride
-Lot of people have been hurt by 9 years of austerity, so again on the back foot
- Has this impresion of being arrogant and little too full of himself. Read his facebook page, with mostly negative comments from the public
- Was involved in the expenses scandal as well as 'hiring' his wife. People have not forgotten that. He has a corrupt image, in age of austerity
So, overall it's going to be a close fight, with Karen slightly ahead. However, if the Tories had selected a clean newbie, with not much baggage as Karl, then most likely the Tories had this in the bag.
My verdict, close win for Karen, less than 1000 votes . Please feel free to disagree.
The red wall in the North has been shaken. Whether it will crumble, will depend on many factors and not only on Brexit.
And welcome to PB!
I’ll now have to take back all the rude things I said about Nigels on the previous thread 😉
The other day I found myself considering vegetarianism for the first time. It was after I saw a video of a truly revolting halal slaughterhouse, I think in India or Pakistan. The treatment of the animals was harrowing. Obscene. I won’t even link to the vid, it’s too upsetting. You can find it on Twitter if you want.
I haven’t made the leap to vegetarianism yet. Might never do so. But I am now taking much greater care to find out where my meat comes from. If I can’t be sure, I won’t buy it or eat it.
I can do this because I am wealthy. I know it is difficult if you’re not.
Long term the future must be lab grown meat, cruelty free. Until we get there one of the easy and necessary things we have to do is ban non-stun halal and kosher slaughter. It is vile.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1202178347834499073
Extinction rebellion - spackers. Does anyone support these cretins?
Ian Lavery - his late attempt to make himself a pantomime villain = watch Wansbeck
nailed it.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002
To be clear though, I'm not advocating total veganism. I'm not a vegan, I eat meat (although not a great deal, probably twice per week on average, although it varies).
I think us meat eaters should be grateful to the vegetarians and vegans out there for increasing our share (by decreasing theirs) of the global sustainable budget for meat production ;-)
Some of them are going to get badly hurt if they keep it up, not just a duffing up by the angry commuters of Canning Town.
I'd have to disagree with you on that.
The Dust Bowl in the US was created when European settlers tried to turn pasture into arable land.
Animal grazing lands are not fungible with arable lands for the most part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
And then, strictly not "1930s" there was the annexation of the Baltics and Bessarabia (today's Moldova in most part).
https://mobile.twitter.com/UKStatsAuth/status/1202180835274833921
If the farmer needed their grazing land back to provide for vegan food though what do you think would happen to them? Would they be allowed to graze or would they be slaughtered?
Biden 29; Sanders 20; Warren 15; Buttigieg 9; Bloomberg 5; Yang 4.
Harris gets 5% as she exits the race.
https://knepp.co.uk/home
As it happens I'm about half-way through Isabella Tree's book on this. It is absolutely fascinating, and also superbly well written - she manages to weave quite a complex set of strands of the story and science into a beautiful and thought-provoking narrative. Very highly recommended - put it on your Xmas list!
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/9781509805105
https://youtu.be/GYYNY2oKVWU
What we need is better sourcing, labelling and information (and less ideology) so consumers can exercise balanced choice.