I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ironically increasing inequality further then in terms of wealthy and non wealthy areas
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
EiT's entertaining collection of leaks suggests that we should ignore them all. I think Bernie is favourite, but not by that much.
O/T: we've just sent out our Labour nomination meeting invitation for Thursday, and it may interest some to know how it works. * Anyone who joined before the election is eligible, and nobody else (registered supporters and later joiners up to Jan 20 can vote in the subsequent ballot) * We've provided one link to websites for each leadership and deputy candidate (plus attached the CVs of the three NEC candidates who bothered to send them), in alphabetical order with no recommendations. No supporting statements from any group or individual are included. * On the night, up to 20 members at random will be invited to speak for up to 2 minutes each on why they favour particular candidates: they're asked in the interest of friendship and brevity not to focus on the defects of alternatives * We'll then ballot on the leadership and count by AV while the similar discussion on deputy leader proceeds. * No executive member has expressed a view in advance of the meeting. Nobody except the secretary, who is carefully neutral, has a list of the 650 members. Only attendees who are there from the start can vote.
I don't think it's riggable and we're trying hard to make it fair and balanced. I'll report back how it goes.
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
I'm sure that four years of "Aspire to do well for yourself? Well, we will put your taxes up" will go down well with those on middle incomes - many of whom in the trades have been dragged into the 40% net by fiscal drag over the years.
McCain thought the same thing in 2008, remember 'Joe the Plumber' but Obama still won the election after 8 years of President Bush with a promise to raise taxes on high earners
The problem in taxation in America is quite different - the rates have no resemblance to the amount paid. The laws are drafted by tax lawyers - for every change they put in hundreds of loopholes. Hence billionaires paying nothing. Obama didn't pay a political price because what he did had basically no effect.
Back before the Republicans went mental, they actually proposed burning down the US income tax system and replacing it with a flat tax. That would be far superior in terms of actually getting tax paid.
In the UK, the tax system has fewer tax loopholes than most. To really get out paying tax you have to do a Philip Green.
It's jolly decent of you chaps to keep investing in pipe dreams and leaving the field clear for the rest of us.
Ensuring in the richest nation on earth that abject poverty is eradicated and all can be treated when sick regardless of the size of their wallet - if this is a "pipe dream" pass me that pipe and that pillow.
The Des Moines Iowa poll has been leaked on twitter by a blue tick journalist and has Sanders ahead and Warren second, which is probably why Sanders has surged on Betfair
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
I wonder if the real poll numbers will be released later today. Better to have the real data in the public domain than all the false stuff. The pollster will want people to see what her work is suggesting before the caucuses.
C'mon Bernie! - 'President Sanders' would counter all the defeats and disappointments for the Left in recent times many times over. It would be HUGE.
I'd rather see Trump out but what do I know?
The only thing Democrats should be thinking about is beating Trump, all the arguments about candidates and policies are secondary to that, because anyone is better than Trump.
Whilst this is true the choices are bordering on rank.
Bernie Sanders, not even a Democrat, very likely to put off independents and moderates, probably lose badly.
Joe Biden, bordering on gaga and he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box to start with. Would lose badly.
Elizabeth Warren. Has a slight folksy charm but the Pocahontas jibe was just the beginning. Would lose badly.
Pete Buttigieg. Inexperienced, mixed record as a Mayor of a smallish town, would lose badly.
Bloomberg. Probably more of a threat to Trump than most but has absolutely no chance in a party willing to think about Sanders for more than a nanosecond.
Klobuchar. Again a folksy charm but seems incredibly ineffectual and a long way from being ready for such a job. Would lose badly.
So what do they do? Swallow their reservations and choose Bloomberg to get rid of a dangerous maniac or indulge their fantasies in the belief that the majority can be swung around to their way of thinking? I think the answer to that is found in the choices Labour made post 2017.
Bloomberg is also vulnerable to the "not a Dem" charge and wants to increase taxes on the rich which (elsewhere on this thread) is apparently fatal. None of the candidates is compelling.
Exactly. But Bloomberg firstly has credibility both from his financial success and time as Mayor of NY and secondly would attract republicans disgusted with their own party's candidate. Like Blair he could reach deep into the opposition's natural turf.
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
His period of reflection, as I have said, appears to have ended in “We were right, one more heave”. Yes, it’s a reflection of the electorate he faces but even so, it suggests (as many of his other actions have) that he’s a follower not a leader.
His main shifts have been on pushing for free movement to enable a return to the single market and abandoning scrapping private schools and pledging to fight anti Semitism.
Other than that his agenda largely matches Corbyn's
Back to normal, and disagreeing. At least I think I am. Not a lot wrong with much of Corbyn's agenda; look at the way Boris is adopting it. In part, at any rate.
The problem with Corbynism was the chap himself. Student (ish) lefty who never really grew up. AIUI he's a good constituency MP, and when he's out of the leadership he'll go back to being that.
Interestingly Mori last week had Nandy with a higher net favourable rating with 2019 Tory voters than Starmer, - 11% compared to -17% for Sir Keir. Though both were preferred to Long Bailey who was on -38% with 2019 Tories.
Starmer did better with 2019 Labour voters though on +29% to only +14% for Long Bailey and +3% for Nandy
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
Owning an expensive house gives you a really valuable asset that can't just be hand-waved away as paper wealth. It means access to some of the world's best-paying markets for skilled workers, or if you are already in the commuter belt, it literally means more hours of life to spend with family instead of commuting. That may have been less important when interest rates were 15% and people discounted long-term future outcomes in the presence of uncertainty around information technology / global thermonuclear tensions, but things change.
It's jolly decent of you chaps to keep investing in pipe dreams and leaving the field clear for the rest of us.
Ensuring in the richest nation on earth that abject poverty is eradicated and all can be treated when sick regardless of the size of their wallet - if this is a "pipe dream" pass me that pipe and that pillow.
The 'Why can't we do this in the richest nation on Earth?'-argument beloved by lefties is particularly lacking in perspicacity: the richest countries on Earth became and have stayed rich through capitalism, not socialism! If they'd killed off business growth and the private accumulation of capital through their policies, there'd be nothing for them to 'redistribute' now.
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
I'm sure that four years of "Aspire to do well for yourself? Well, we will put your taxes up" will go down well with those on middle incomes - many of whom in the trades have been dragged into the 40% net by fiscal drag over the years.
McCain thought the same thing in 2008, remember 'Joe the Plumber' but Obama still won the election after 8 years of President Bush with a promise to raise taxes on high earners
The problem in taxation in America is quite different - the rates have no resemblance to the amount paid. The laws are drafted by tax lawyers - for every change they put in hundreds of loopholes. Hence billionaires paying nothing. Obama didn't pay a political price because what he did had basically no effect.
Back before the Republicans went mental, they actually proposed burning down the US income tax system and replacing it with a flat tax. That would be far superior in terms of actually getting tax paid.
In the UK, the tax system has fewer tax loopholes than most. To really get out paying tax you have to do a Philip Green.
To an extent Obama did pay a political price, while he won the election overall and all voters with a household income under $50 000 a year, McCain won voters with a household income of $50 000 - $75 000 and $100-$200 000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
I absolutely agree with this assessment. The implication is that the levelling will not happen. Labour voters in Tottenham and Newham will have fewer opportunities, and Brexit voters in northern towns will have more. But the Conservative voters in semi-Ds will be shielded.
EiT's entertaining collection of leaks suggests that we should ignore them all. I think Bernie is favourite, but not by that much.
O/T: we've just sent out our Labour nomination meeting invitation for Thursday, and it may interest some to know how it works. * Anyone who joined before the election is eligible, and nobody else (registered supporters and later joiners up to Jan 20 can vote in the subsequent ballot) * We've provided one link to websites for each leadership and deputy candidate (plus attached the CVs of the three NEC candidates who bothered to send them), in alphabetical order with no recommendations. No supporting statements from any group or individual are included. * On the night, up to 20 members at random will be invited to speak for up to 2 minutes each on why they favour particular candidates: they're asked in the interest of friendship and brevity not to focus on the defects of alternatives * We'll then ballot on the leadership and count by AV while the similar discussion on deputy leader proceeds. * No executive member has expressed a view in advance of the meeting. Nobody except the secretary, who is carefully neutral, has a list of the 650 members. Only attendees who are there from the start can vote.
I don't think it's riggable and we're trying hard to make it fair and balanced. I'll report back how it goes.
That does sound like a pretty sensible way of organising the event and ballot.
I see PB Tories (or whatever right wing contortion describes them now), having drunk deeply from the commiemarxistvenezuela cup during the GE ,are unable to set it aside. They'll be ripping off BJ's redistributive fig leaf afore ye know it, to reveal what I shudder to think.
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
I'm sure that four years of "Aspire to do well for yourself? Well, we will put your taxes up" will go down well with those on middle incomes - many of whom in the trades have been dragged into the 40% net by fiscal drag over the years.
McCain thought the same thing in 2008, remember 'Joe the Plumber' but Obama still won the election after 8 years of President Bush with a promise to raise taxes on high earners
The problem in taxation in America is quite different - the rates have no resemblance to the amount paid. The laws are drafted by tax lawyers - for every change they put in hundreds of loopholes. Hence billionaires paying nothing. Obama didn't pay a political price because what he did had basically no effect.
Back before the Republicans went mental, they actually proposed burning down the US income tax system and replacing it with a flat tax. That would be far superior in terms of actually getting tax paid.
In the UK, the tax system has fewer tax loopholes than most. To really get out paying tax you have to do a Philip Green.
To an extent Obama did pay a political price, while he won the election overall and all voters with a household income under $50 000 a year, McCain won voters with a household income of $50 000 - $75 000 and $100-$200 000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election
A favourite moment - when the Republicans proposed their plan, Bill Clinton blurted out "But that would mean that hundred of thousands of tax lawyers would lose their jobs!"
Almost as funny a Senator John Glenn castigating Bush Jr. for letting Enron collapse (before the fraud became known)
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Yes, London would become even more a city for the rich or the poor and even more of those in the middle would have to move out and that also applies to some extent in the wider Home Counties.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Yes, London would become even more a city for the rich or the poor and even more of those in the middle would have to move out and that also applies to some extent in the wider Home Counties.
For those who want the end state of blocking development combined with incoming money and multiplied by progressive community groups - go look at the paradise of San Fransisco.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Yes, London would become even more a city for the rich or the poor and even more of those in the middle would have to move out and that also applies to some extent in the wider Home Counties.
In early Edwardian times, Chiswick was turned from a village into a suburb in less than a decade precisely to meet the issue of a lack of housing across the income range.
Anyone who says "build on brownfield" at this point is an ass, by the way.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
The 'Why can't we do this in the richest nation on Earth?'-argument beloved by lefties is particularly lacking in perspicacity: the richest countries on Earth became and have stayed rich through capitalism, not socialism! If they'd killed off business growth and the private accumulation of capital through their policies, there'd be nothing for them to 'redistribute' now.
Not really. An example. America and Germany are both rich. Germany has managed it without accepting anything of the inequalities and iniquities of American life. Sanders would move America in that direction. He is closer to Angela Merkel than he is to Leon Trotsky.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
How many adults actually live in their childhood home, once they've set up a household of their own? All very well, perhaps, in the days when average life expectancy meant that a person of 60 was 'old', but nowadays children move off and set up for themselves. One of the reasons we 'need' so much new housing. None of my children, I'm certain, ever thought of living in their 'childhood' home; I certainly never thought of doing so; indeed, I lived 25o miles away, at least at first. My sister didn't, and very definitely wouldn't have.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritance taxes on homes, is that you have a situation where people are inheriting 4 bed semis they literally cannot afford to buy. In the area I live in, we have a mix of residents. Just going by the cars, you can see the incomers who have paid the full recent price.
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
It is difficult to believe that the current administration believe in "controlled spending". Unless you define it as "conservatives being the ones in control of it". There hasn't been a properly fiscally conservative budget for quite a while (Ken Clarke in the 90s?)
I see PB Tories (or whatever right wing contortion describes them now), having drunk deeply from the commiemarxistvenezuela cup during the GE ,are unable to set it aside. They'll be ripping off BJ's redistributive fig leaf afore ye know it, to reveal what I shudder to think.
One of the reasons why I'd have considered a Labour-SNP coalition far preferable to a Labour majority - if either ghastly scenario had to happen - is because the Scots aren't actually as socialist as they appear, and would probably have moderated Corbyn's insanity to some degree. You don't fool us!
The 'Why can't we do this in the richest nation on Earth?'-argument beloved by lefties is particularly lacking in perspicacity: the richest countries on Earth became and have stayed rich through capitalism, not socialism! If they'd killed off business growth and the private accumulation of capital through their policies, there'd be nothing for them to 'redistribute' now.
Not really. An example. America and Germany are both rich. Germany has managed it without accepting anything of the inequalities and iniquities of American life. Sanders would move America in that direction. He is closer to Angela Merkel than he is to Leon Trotsky.
Social Democratic Mixed Market Liberal Democracies (which is what all the advanced nations on the planet are) vary as a spectrum. Both Germany and America are firmly within that continuum.
If the cardinal social injustice in Britain is that poor people can't afford to inherit their parents' houses in Richmond-on-Thames, and that this is so widespread that it justifies immunising the rich people who would inherit the neighbouring houses, then something really bizarre has happened to the wealth and income distributions since Brexit day.
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
Yes, that's a fair description of Denmark when I grew up (and as far as I know still is). It wasn't socialist enough for me (which I was active in helping the Danish communists) but it was really not bad.
The 'Why can't we do this in the richest nation on Earth?'-argument beloved by lefties is particularly lacking in perspicacity: the richest countries on Earth became and have stayed rich through capitalism, not socialism! If they'd killed off business growth and the private accumulation of capital through their policies, there'd be nothing for them to 'redistribute' now.
Not really. An example. America and Germany are both rich. Germany has managed it without accepting anything of the inequalities and iniquities of American life. Sanders would move America in that direction. He is closer to Angela Merkel than he is to Leon Trotsky.
Sanders would be a Social Democrat even in Germany
If the cardinal social injustice in Britain is that poor people can't afford to inherit their parents' houses in Richmond-on-Thames, and that this is so widespread that it justifies immunising the rich people who would inherit the neighbouring houses, then something really bizarre has happened to the wealth and income distributions since Brexit day.
No - but it wont fix either the housing crisis or provide the government with vast resources to solve the housing crisis.
The housing issue in this country is the refusal of the state to allow development to match the rate of increase in the population - especially in the South East. Simple supply and demand.
Agricultural land 40 minutes by train from central London costs £2500 an acre. I don't have figures to hand, but the same land with planning permission would be orders of magnitude more expensive.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
A major result of a heavy tax on inheritance would be that every house would have an Overfinch on the driveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
How many adults actually live in their childhood home, once they've set up a household of their own? All very well, perhaps, in the days when average life expectancy meant that a person of 60 was 'old', but nowadays children move off and set up for themselves. One of the reasons we 'need' so much new housing. None of my children, I'm certain, ever thought of living in their 'childhood' home; I certainly never thought of doing so; indeed, I lived 25o miles away, at least at first. My sister didn't, and very definitely wouldn't have.
Yet lots of people inherit properties to sell or get transfers from parents to help them got on or move up the housing ladder
How many adults actually live in their childhood home, once they've set up a household of their own? All very well, perhaps, in the days when average life expectancy meant that a person of 60 was 'old', but nowadays children move off and set up for themselves. One of the reasons we 'need' so much new housing. None of my children, I'm certain, ever thought of living in their 'childhood' home; I certainly never thought of doing so; indeed, I lived 25o miles away, at least at first. My sister didn't, and very definitely wouldn't have.
Living in your childhood home is not rare. Like teenage pregnancy, it's something that was normal and unremarkable up to the recent past. I looked at a house once that was bought by the parents in the 1910s and was now on sale because the last grandchild had died. Confirming that the great-grandchild selling it actually *owned* it proved to be difficult, much to the discomfort of that person.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritancveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
Social Democratic Mixed Market Liberal Democracies (which is what all the advanced nations on the planet are) vary as a spectrum. Both Germany and America are firmly within that continuum.
You're seeing the USA as a nation animated by the spirit and values of Vince Cable?
Sanders would be a Social Democrat even in Germany
Yes. Perhaps he will scare off some voters but he is hardly an American Castro.
Again, there is a peculiar assumption that the specific political culture of a particular country makes no difference to how individual politicians are perceived. 'Oh, Corbyn would be totally mainstream in Sweden', we often heard. Yes, in which case he should seriously consider moving to Sweden and running for election there. In our political culture, he is considered a dangerous extremist.
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
I see PB Tories (or whatever right wing contortion describes them now), having drunk deeply from the commiemarxistvenezuela cup during the GE ,are unable to set it aside. They'll be ripping off BJ's redistributive fig leaf afore ye know it, to reveal what I shudder to think.
One of the reasons why I'd have considered a Labour-SNP coalition far preferable to a Labour majority - if either ghastly scenario had to happen - is because the Scots aren't actually as socialist as they appear, and would probably have moderated Corbyn's insanity to some degree. You don't fool us!
I'm sure the SNP wouldn't have prevented Lab from instituting policies (free tuition, an end to the bedroom tax, free personal care for over-65s, climate change targets, getting rid of NHS parking charges, lowering the voting age, offering free school meals to primary school kids) that they'd nicked from the SNP. I'm also pretty sure they'd have encouraged some unilateral 'insanity' over Trident 'n'all.
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
I'd say it's both. But, yes, with the emphasis more on wealth. Bird in the hand etc.
With rising house prices etc there are also a lot of people who are more asset rich than income rich. Indeed a rise in inheritance tax would likely hit more voters than a increase income tax for those earning more than £80,000 a year
The problem with inheritancveway.
Ok, but the more important result is that the Overfinchers would have handed over a big chunk of change to HM Govt, which would get spent on projects for people who aren't able to either inherit or afford those 4-bed semi-Ds in settled areas.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
If you are on the left maybe, conservatives believe in inherited wealth and controlled public spending
:
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
What a Lefty moron.
Labour will always have the solution tax the rich more. The way to answer it is to ask them how they propose to do so without those people moving abroad.
Just no fresh thinking, though, is there?
Keeping Labour's "soak the rich" domestic socialist approach, whilst dropping Corbyn's foreign policy baggage, won't be enough to win over floating Tory voters and win an election.
Not so sure about that, Obama won in 2008 and in 2012 in the US promising to raise taxes on the rich, as narrowly did Hollande in France in 2012 and as did Trudeau in Canada, just, last autumn.
Centre left promises to increase tax on middle income voters may be fatal but promises to tax the rich more are not necessarily
80,000 per year isn't rich.
It is for 90% of the population, £80,000 a year may not get you into the top 1% of earners but it will comfortably get you into the top 10% of earners in the UK
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
Precisely. Starmer is looking to tax successful professionals here, not the rich.
Social Democratic Mixed Market Liberal Democracies (which is what all the advanced nations on the planet are) vary as a spectrum. Both Germany and America are firmly within that continuum.
You're seeing the USA as a nation animated by the spirit and values of Vince Cable?
No - they are part of continuum that goes from the (semi mythical state of pure capitalism in) Hong Kong to.. I think it is France these days that has the highest government spend to GDP in the advanced nations.
Vince Cable is a point along the line :-)
It's instructive to leave the rhetoric behind sometimes and look at the numbers.
Starmer is just another empty suit armed with slogans. I had much higher hopes.
What a Lefty moron.
Labour will always have the solution tax the rich more. The way to answer it is to ask them how they propose to do so without those people moving abroad.
Just no fresh thinking, though, is there?
Keeping Labour's "soak the rich" domestic socialist approach, whilst dropping Corbyn's foreign policy baggage, won't be enough to win over floating Tory voters and win an election.
Not so sure about that, Obama won in 2008 and in 2012 in the US promising to raise taxes on the rich, as narrowly did Hollande in France in 2012 and as did Trudeau in Canada, just, last autumn.
Centre left promises to increase tax on middle income voters may be fatal but promises to tax the rich more are not necessarily
80,000 per year isn't rich.
It is for 90% of the population, £80,000 a year may not get you into the top 1% of earners but it will comfortably get you into the top 10% of earners in the UK
I would say that “rich” is a definition of how much money you have, not how much money you earn. If you want to “tax the rich” you have to think about wealth/asset taxes not payroll taxes.
Precisely. Starmer is looking to tax successful professionals here, not the rich.
He wants to increase capital gains tax as well as the top income tax rate and reverse inheritance tax cuts and as head of the CPS cracked down on tax evasion, that will also hit the rich as well as the more prosperous middle class
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
My point is not about inheritance tax, but ownership of high-value assets like expensive houses (and note that 70% of Swedes may own a flat, which is not a house). You can have societies where only high-wealth and high-income people access the most expensive housing and they can work out fine for the people in the middle. You can do that with an equal distribution like Sweden, but if you don't start from that point, inheritance tax can get you there. In fact, that is also how Sweden got there: a very low-threshold gift tax.
Again, there is a peculiar assumption that the specific political culture of a particular country makes no difference to how individual politicians are perceived. 'Oh, Corbyn would be totally mainstream in Sweden', we often heard. Yes, in which case he should seriously consider moving to Sweden and running for election there. In our political culture, he is considered a dangerous extremist.
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
That's true. It does depend on where you are. Barry Gardiner would be Genghis Khan in North Korea. And opinion in the relevant country is more important than what people elsewhere think. In fact, come elections, the only thing that counts is what is counted - the votes - and in America these will come from Americans.
The problem you will hit is that you are making a problem worse - the exclusion of social groups from some areas. We haven't reached the French (Paris in some areas) level yet, but that results in the super wealthy and the super poor (public housing) with no middle.
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Paras 1 & 2 are the Scandi approach, which of course doesn't end up with no-middle. They do have hugely wealthy Trump-like families who control the private-sector economy, and resilient upper-middle classes with assets and nice London-like global lifestyles. But everyone else just asks "why would you want to live in those areas full of weird rich people who like to dress in white tie and sail? We all just have recourse to the best welfare states in the world, though we aren't going to end life owning a house".
My point is not about inheritance tax, but ownership of high-value assets like expensive houses (and note that 70% of Swedes may own a flat, which is not a house). You can have societies where only high-wealth and high-income people access the most expensive housing and they can work out fine for the people in the middle. You can do that with an equal distribution like Sweden, but if you don't start from that point, inheritance tax can get you there. In fact, that is also how Sweden got there: a very low-threshold gift tax.
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
On that National poll with Trump beating everyone but Biden, IBD has a notoriously Republican lean polling bias, their eve of election poll had Trump winning nationally by 2 points.
The final IBD 2016 poll had Hillary ahead by 1% and she won the popular vote by 2%, so was almost spot on.
Sorry HYUFD I'm on mobile and can't type in Vanilla very well. I don't see how abolishing the tax is relevant- they had a hundred years of very high taxes, leaving the wealth distribution very different to the UK, yet middle people still did fine. I am only saying it is not an argument against an inheritance tax that it owns with grossly unequal societies. Sweden in 2004 was not grossly unequal. In part because as you say, flats and rural houses are a huge component of the housing stock, not semi-D s in nice suburbs.
No - they are part of continuum that goes from the (semi mythical state of pure capitalism in) Hong Kong to.. I think it is France these days that has the highest government spend to GDP in the advanced nations.
Vince Cable is a point along the line :-)
It's instructive to leave the rhetoric behind sometimes and look at the numbers.
OK. But there are meaningful distinctions to be made along that spectrum. And "leaving the rhetoric behind" is excellent advice which I will forward to those describing the likes of Sanders and Corbyn as Venezuela mongers.
The pressure not to release it came from the Buttigieg campaign which tells us a lot, pluS the last published Iowa DMR poll from January had Sanders ahead so that can be used as a marker
Er, it tells you his was the name left off the list! No wonder he didn’t want it released!
I think he was on it, just that it wasn't read out in one interview.
The sequence of events as reported seems to be something like: * Interviewer reads the (randomized) list with Mayor Pete left off it to a Mayor Pete enthusiast * Mayor Pete enthusiast tells Mayor Pete campaign * Mayor Pete campaign complains * Selzer / DMR go "oh shit, they're right" and pull the poll
It's not clear that Mayor Pete's campaign actually knew the result at the time they complained; I doubt they did, because if they had the numbers then presumably the other campaigns also had the numbers, and if the other campaigns also had the numbers then they'd have leaked before the announcement, and we'd have more authoritative leaks after the announcement of the cancellation.
No, they almost certainly didn’t. The cause was a faulty screen setting which caused some candidate names to be outside of the display area. The pollster cannot be certain how many canvas calls were effected, and rightly concluded the reliability of the poll was irretrievably flawed.
No - they are part of continuum that goes from the (semi mythical state of pure capitalism in) Hong Kong to.. I think it is France these days that has the highest government spend to GDP in the advanced nations.
Vince Cable is a point along the line :-)
It's instructive to leave the rhetoric behind sometimes and look at the numbers.
OK. But there are meaningful distinctions to be made along that spectrum. And "leaving the rhetoric behind" is excellent advice which I will forward to those describing the likes of Sanders and Corbyn as Venezuela mongers.
Corbyn actively admires and supports the government of Venezuela.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
Corbyn actively admires and supports the government of Venezuela.
Sanders doesn't.
That would be a difference between those two then. Although admiring in a Latin American context does not mean planning the same for the UK. But my point was more linked to yours - one should look at size of state in % of GDP, the hard numbers, before throwing around extreme adjectives - and Corbyn Labour did not look particularly wild by European standards on that measure. Although of course we will never know in practice.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
Well, only about 30% would need to vote for him to get that fraction.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
Homelessness is a huge problem across the west coast, but it's not as clear cut as you make out. Firstly homeless people travel to the west coast, especially California because it's warm all year round, secondly both California and Oregon have the most generous homelessness programmes and finally they also have the most relaxed state laws on buying and selling of opiod based drugs.
No doubt there is a huge homelessness issue in the US, particularly California, however, it's a much more complicated problem than EU vs US as your post makes out. It's a glib and cheap shot at what is a very serious issue that gets to the heart of the opiod addiction crisis that has swepts across the whole of the US.
Again, there is a peculiar assumption that the specific political culture of a particular country makes no difference to how individual politicians are perceived. 'Oh, Corbyn would be totally mainstream in Sweden', we often heard. Yes, in which case he should seriously consider moving to Sweden and running for election there. In our political culture, he is considered a dangerous extremist.
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
That's true. It does depend on where you are. Barry Gardiner would be Genghis Khan in North Korea. And opinion in the relevant country is more important than what people elsewhere think. In fact, come elections, the only thing that counts is what is counted - the votes - and in America these will come from Americans.
Interesting exchange. Also, reformism is a state of mind framed around the society one sees around one - so it's unreasonable to question whether an 18th century reformer was genuine because one finds that he didn't favour (say) uiniversal suffrage - wanting to get rid of slavery worldwide was a radical policy then.
Corbyn actively admires and supports the government of Venezuela.
Sanders doesn't.
That would be a difference between those two then. Although admiring in a Latin American context does not mean planning the same for the UK. But my point was more linked to yours - one should look at size of state in % of GDP, the hard numbers, before throwing around extreme adjectives - and Corbyn Labour did not look particularly wild by European standards on that measure. Although of course we will never know in practice.
Though I rather doubt that he would try the Scandinavian solution of low taxes for companies and high taxes for individuals.
Sanders would be a Social Democrat even in Germany
Yes. Perhaps he will scare off some voters but he is hardly an American Castro.
Again, there is a peculiar assumption that the specific political culture of a particular country makes no difference to how individual politicians are perceived. 'Oh, Corbyn would be totally mainstream in Sweden', we often heard. Yes, in which case he should seriously consider moving to Sweden and running for election there. In our political culture, he is considered a dangerous extremist.
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
I find the Corbyn would be mainstream in Sweden totally bogus.
Anyone who imagines him going to Sweden and being a centrist there is deluded. Labour's manifestos (especially 2017) were heavily moderated to fit this country's political climate (McDonnell is MUCH more of a pragmatist).
If he was in Sweden he wouldn't need to do that, and would still be considered far to the left.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
One feature of that area is a demented housing policy - think all the worst parts of UK housing policy and turn it up to 14 or 15 out of 10.
The rich don't want high rise building. The environmentalists stop the city expanding. The community groups stop "gentrification".
If you have more people you need more places for them to sleep. Inside or outside is just a choice at that point.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
Homelessness is a huge problem across the west coast, but it's not as clear cut as you make out. Firstly homeless people travel to the west coast, especially California because it's warm all year round, secondly both California and Oregon have the most generous homelessness programmes and finally they also have the most relaxed state laws on buying and selling of opiod based drugs.
No doubt there is a huge homelessness issue in the US, particularly California, however, it's a much more complicated problem than EU vs US as your post makes out. It's a glib and cheap shot at what is a very serious issue that gets to the heart of the opiod addiction crisis that has swepts across the whole of the US.
Homelessness is a symptom of a much wider malaise, as is opioid addiction, as is endemic obesity, as is the generally poor public infrastructure. The US is an extraordinary country in many ways, but the average European leads a better life than the average American - and lives longer, too.
What will a BJ love bombing look like? Him galloping in, ejaculating a few spurious promises of which he will deny paternity when they fail to materialise, then galloping out leaving a few heartbroken Unionists?
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
We've ended up in the same spot on the spectrum, I think!
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Again, there is a peculiar assumption that the specific political culture of a particular country makes no difference to how individual politicians are perceived. 'Oh, Corbyn would be totally mainstream in Sweden', we often heard. Yes, in which case he should seriously consider moving to Sweden and running for election there. In our political culture, he is considered a dangerous extremist.
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
That's true. It does depend on where you are. Barry Gardiner would be Genghis Khan in North Korea. And opinion in the relevant country is more important than what people elsewhere think. In fact, come elections, the only thing that counts is what is counted - the votes - and in America these will come from Americans.
Interesting exchange. Also, reformism is a state of mind framed around the society one sees around one - so it's unreasonable to question whether an 18th century reformer was genuine because one finds that he didn't favour (say) uiniversal suffrage - wanting to get rid of slavery worldwide was a radical policy then.
The parallel universe we should be living in is the one where your government - back when you yourself were in parliament - had kept its promise to implement the outcome of the Jenkins Commission and we’d have had a fair voting system that confined everything that has happened in British politics since 2010 to the dustbin of history.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
We've ended up in the same spot on the spectrum, I think!
I hope so. I am tired of arguing with people who I agree with on most things!
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Except that much of the stuff on bird strikes is not borne out by the evidence under the turbine blades, once they have been built. I am led to believe by environmentalists who have actually checked: "carnage" was one word use.
What will a BJ love bombing look like? Him galloping in, ejaculating a few spurious promises of which he will deny paternity when they fail to materialise, then galloping out leaving a few heartbroken Unionists?
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Nimbyism is a much bigger challenge than environmental lawyers.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Except that much of the stuff on bird strikes is not borne out by the evidence under the turbine blades, once they have been built. I am led to believe by environmentalists who have actually checked: "carnage" was one word use.
The sea is not a uniform construct with fish and birds everywhere - hence the ability to build airports next to or on water.
In recent years ecologists have mapped the concentrations of the fish and birds.
The Evul Off Shore Wind Farming Barstewards simply put their Windmills of Death where there are few if any birds. The absolute scum. Don't they understand that their are mortgages to be paid, careers to be built in opposing their works?
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
We've ended up in the same spot on the spectrum, I think!
I am tired of arguing with people who I agree with on most things!
I thought that was the most important thing about being in a political party. To some at least.
On the subject of the Iowa Caucus, do we know what time (UK time) the results will be announced? or is it a gradual thing?
If memory serves from previous cycles it is gradual as we get some level of results from each caucus site. Lots of rumours/anecdotes on Twitter. The caucus begins at 7pm local time which is 1am Tuesday morning in the UK. The process involves:
1. Speeches from volunteers for each candidate (not all sites will have a volunteer for every candidate) 2. The initial vote (when people stand in areas of rooms to indicate support) 3. The opportunity to realign if your group is too small to be 'viable' (note the threshold for this differs depending on how large a caucus site it is) 4. The final vote 5. Converting #4 into 'State delegate equivalents'.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
If the Democrats end up picking Sanders, Trump will have loads of footage of fellow Dems calling Bernie an old commie.
Rather like with Corbyn and Labour, if the Dem primary votes pick Bernie it could well split the party.
What will a BJ love bombing look like? Him galloping in, ejaculating a few spurious promises of which he will deny paternity when they fail to materialise, then galloping out leaving a few heartbroken Unionists?
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
San Jose, is in California and which has been run by left wing politicians for a long time. the homelessness problem in particular is principally a result of regulatory system that stops most new building of houses. go to somewhere with a more relaxed attitude to house building like Texas and homelessness is at or about UK levels.
The US healthcare system is a mess, agreed, but with 51% of the funding coming from the federal government and a mountain of regulation, at federal, state and even local level, and its hard to call it a failer of the free market. even there there are some good aspects of the US system, I would estimate that a good 60%-80% of Americans get better healthcare than in the UK.
Within the EU, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, all have healthcare systems based fare more around competing providers and something approximating a market.and has vastly better results than the NHS. if you want better healthcare this is the way to go, not blindly more tax and more spending.
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Nimbyism is a much bigger challenge than environmental lawyers.
Nimbysim is enabled by the anti-development industry. Hence, in France, if you want to build a railway, you do so. There are just as many Nimbys in France. They just don't get legal assistance to hold everything up for half a decade.
The other issue is the featherbedding of contracts. All the nice little games of layering - subcontracting repeatedly, so that no one layer makes too much profit...
Interesting exchange. Also, reformism is a state of mind framed around the society one sees around one - so it's unreasonable to question whether an 18th century reformer was genuine because one finds that he didn't favour (say) uiniversal suffrage - wanting to get rid of slavery worldwide was a radical policy then.
This speaks to one of yesterday's conversations. My view is that social progress is almost as inevitable as scientific progress. We get more enlightened with time. Therefore past times always look backward to us but we should not apply our standards retrospectively to conclude they were backward. This would be a false and unfair conclusion. Likewise we should realize that we will appear backward to future times but can hope that they cut us some slack too.
I think you should try to be a bit ahead of the curve in your own time. Do not just accept things as they are but equally do not get too visionary and bleeding edge. If you do this you don't connect and persuade, you look like a crank or a dreamer. For example, argue for Trans people to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else but do not start questioning the whole construct of gender, claiming it's outdated, that there is no such binary reality as "men" and "women". This might well become an accepted and obvious truth one day - I can certainly imagine it - but for now leave this to the realms of fiction.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
If the Democrats end up picking Sanders, Trump will have loads of footage of fellow Dems calling Bernie an old commie.
Rather like with Corbyn and Labour, if the Dem primary votes pick Bernie it could well split the party.
On the one hand, I agree this is a risk. On the other hand, Trump won despite all the stuff his opponents said about him during and after the primaries. Until he was elected the party was barely holding together, but he still won.
If the numbers released from the Iowa poll are true, the Bernie should be sinking in the betting and Warren and Bluttigieg rising.
Why?
Because second choices.
No-one wins the Democratic Iowa caucus - with its 15% hurdle at the precinct level (and sometimes higher in smaller precincts) - on 23%. Yeah, you would win it in the Republican caucus with a field this split. But not in the Democratic one, because second choices.
To win the Iowa caucuses by a clear margin, Sanders needed Warren to be struggling to be viable. He needed her on 13-14%. Because if she was there, and he was on 25-27%, then he'd pick up the vast majority of her second choices and stroll to victory. But on this poll Warren is likely viable everywhere. Warren, in fact, will be picking up delegates on second choices. She may even have a shout of getting ahead of Sanders.
So, on this poll, the following candidates are unlikely to get delegates: Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Yang, Steyer, Gabbard. Candidates in the 10-14% range won't get that many delegates either, because they'll miss out on the 15% in most precincts.
So, we need to ask where the 5% of people who probably wanted to vote for Bloomberg will go. My view is that they will go to the most viable moderate candidate.
And where will the 10% of voters who supported Klobuchar go? I'd reckon they will split - probably fairly evenly - between Warren and the most viable moderate candidate.
And what of the 50-60% of the 14% who support Biden? Because in the majority of precincts he won't be viable. Somehow, I think they will mostly find the most viable moderate candidate to vote for.
Sanders will of course pick up some second choice votes. I'd reckon he gets all the Gabbard votes (say 2%), and perhaps a third of the Yang votes (another 2%).
But realistically, there are more moderate second choices to share out than there are left wing ones. And Warren being so high in this poll is not great news for him.
My consistent view has been that - pretty rapidly - the Democratic nomination process would find a moderate champion, and a left wing champion. If either wing took a long time to find their champion, then they would be in trouble. This poll has two viable left wing candidates. (That being said, if Biden is really at 16-17%, then the poll has two viable moderate candidates too. There's a very tight window between success and failure with the 15% hurdle.)
I’m currently in San Jose, Silicon Valley - the biggest city in the richest place on earth - and the homelessness, the squalor, is unlike anything you see in Europe. This is a country without pity that treats those who fall behind like sub-humans who deserve nothing but contempt.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
If we want to improve infrastructure we need to cut the cost. Some sacred elephants need shooting.
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Nimbyism is a much bigger challenge than environmental lawyers.
Nimbysim is enabled by the anti-development industry. Hence, in France, if you want to build a railway, you do so. There are just as many Nimbys in France. They just don't get legal assistance to hold everything up for half a decade.
The other issue is the featherbedding of contracts. All the nice little games of layering - subcontracting repeatedly, so that no one layer makes too much profit...
UK property rights are very strong. Helps NIMBY, but also GIMME. State seizures of property, as in China, make development much easier.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
If the Democrats end up picking Sanders, Trump will have loads of footage of fellow Dems calling Bernie an old commie.
Rather like with Corbyn and Labour, if the Dem primary votes pick Bernie it could well split the party.
Otoh loads of Tories have called BJ everything under the sun, and here we are with some of them in his cabinet and others his devoted servants on here. Perhaps Corbyn & co missed a trick not making more of that, or perhaps it doesn't really matter once someone is the candidate.
Interesting exchange. Also, reformism is a state of mind framed around the society one sees around one - so it's unreasonable to question whether an 18th century reformer was genuine because one finds that he didn't favour (say) uiniversal suffrage - wanting to get rid of slavery worldwide was a radical policy then.
This speaks to one of yesterday's conversations. My view is that social progress is almost as inevitable as scientific progress. We get more enlightened with time. Therefore past times always look backward to us but we should not apply our standards retrospectively to conclude they were backward. This would be a false and unfair conclusion. Likewise we should realize that we will appear backward to future times but can hope that they cut us some slack too.
I think you should try to be a bit ahead of the curve in your own time. Do not just accept things as they are but equally do not get too visionary and bleeding edge. If you do this you don't connect and persuade, you look like a crank or a dreamer. For example, argue for Trans people to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else but do not start questioning the whole construct of gender, claiming it's outdated, that there is no such binary reality as "men" and "women". This might well become an accepted and obvious truth one day - I can certainly imagine it - but for now leave this to the realms of fiction.
Do YOU think Sanders can beat Trump btw?
Any Democrat >can< beat Trump - just that some are more likely to do so than others.
San Jose, is in California and which has been run by left wing politicians for a long time. the homelessness problem in particular is principally a result of regulatory system that stops most new building of houses. go to somewhere with a more relaxed attitude to house building like Texas and homelessness is at or about UK levels.
The US healthcare system is a mess, agreed, but with 51% of the funding coming from the federal government and a mountain of regulation, at federal, state and even local level, and its hard to call it a failer of the free market. even there there are some good aspects of the US system, I would estimate that a good 60%-80% of Americans get better healthcare than in the UK.
Within the EU, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, all have healthcare systems based fare more around competing providers and something approximating a market.and has vastly better results than the NHS. if you want better healthcare this is the way to go, not blindly more tax and more spending.
I thought homelessness in the US was almost entirely correlated with temperateness of weather? So, Colorado/Denver (left wing government) has very little homelesness because you'd die in winter. And Texas has very little homelessness because you'd die in summer.
The West Coast is never too hot and never too cold, and therefore even in parts run by the Republicans (like Orange County and historically San Diego), you have lots of homelessness.
Just saw Trump on 50% in the polls, I find this very unlikely. I don't see how Trump will get 50% in the election, I could see him win with 46% against 47-48% for the opponent.
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
Who where the pollsters? could be an outlier, I don't know.
That sead, I'm not sure this impeachment things is going to pan out the way Democratic strategists are hoping. The hard left have been pushing for impeachment almost sins he was invigorated, but things that satisfy the deepest deisers of your core supporters, are rarely the things that 'swing' swing voters. If Trump 'wins', he may look stronger at the end, and could leave those who pushed for impeachment looking silly.
Comments
Actual: Dem 48.2, Rep 46.1, Oth 5.7
Mean Absolute Error
= |(48.2-43)| + |(46.1-42)| + |(15-5.7)| divided by three
= (5.2+4.1+9.3)/3
= 18.6/3
= 6.2 percentage points
That's not a good prediction.
Unless you think the accuracy of a prediction is "does it predict the winner of the popular vote", in which case yes it is.
Unless you think the accuracy of a prediction is "does it predict the Presidency", in which case no it isn't.
O/T: we've just sent out our Labour nomination meeting invitation for Thursday, and it may interest some to know how it works.
* Anyone who joined before the election is eligible, and nobody else (registered supporters and later joiners up to Jan 20 can vote in the subsequent ballot)
* We've provided one link to websites for each leadership and deputy candidate (plus attached the CVs of the three NEC candidates who bothered to send them), in alphabetical order with no recommendations. No supporting statements from any group or individual are included.
* On the night, up to 20 members at random will be invited to speak for up to 2 minutes each on why they favour particular candidates: they're asked in the interest of friendship and brevity not to focus on the defects of alternatives
* We'll then ballot on the leadership and count by AV while the similar discussion on deputy leader proceeds.
* No executive member has expressed a view in advance of the meeting. Nobody except the secretary, who is carefully neutral, has a list of the 650 members. Only attendees who are there from the start can vote.
I don't think it's riggable and we're trying hard to make it fair and balanced. I'll report back how it goes.
Back before the Republicans went mental, they actually proposed burning down the US income tax system and replacing it with a flat tax. That would be far superior in terms of actually getting tax paid.
In the UK, the tax system has fewer tax loopholes than most. To really get out paying tax you have to do a Philip Green.
Come on! I thought we were serious now about levelling Britain (to the...)? Was it just cheap talk?
Starmer did better with 2019 Labour voters though on +29% to only +14% for Long Bailey and +3% for Nandy
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/low-public-awareness-all-labour-leadership-candidates-although-keir-starmer-starting-stronger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidential_election
A policy which consists of taxing people out of their childhood home - and pushing them out of the area they have grown up in is not popular. Hence the requirements for social housing in new developments... after all, if you really believe in maximisation of taxation gain, then the social housing requirement is inefficient to.
The real answer to levelling Britain - wither allow more house building in the South East or move jobs out of the South East.
Almost as funny a Senator John Glenn castigating Bush Jr. for letting Enron collapse (before the fraud became known)
Anyone who says "build on brownfield" at this point is an ass, by the way.
All very well, perhaps, in the days when average life expectancy meant that a person of 60 was 'old', but nowadays children move off and set up for themselves. One of the reasons we 'need' so much new housing.
None of my children, I'm certain, ever thought of living in their 'childhood' home; I certainly never thought of doing so; indeed, I lived 25o miles away, at least at first. My sister didn't, and very definitely wouldn't have.
Out of interest, how did Tony Blair present himself during his leadership campaign?
The housing issue in this country is the refusal of the state to allow development to match the rate of increase in the population - especially in the South East. Simple supply and demand.
Agricultural land 40 minutes by train from central London costs £2500 an acre. I don't have figures to hand, but the same land with planning permission would be orders of magnitude more expensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
Sweden also abolished inheritance tax in 2004
https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inheritance-tax
Unlike some conservatives, however, I do think Sanders can beat Trump, partly because the latter is an idiot who keeps making unforced errors, and partly (as we saw with Attlee) because offering people a welfare state and universal healthcare _where none previously existed_ * can be a potent electoral motivator.
*Of course, once people have it, they tend to drop the hard left like a hot stone, but that's a question for next time.
Something like that.
Vince Cable is a point along the line :-)
It's instructive to leave the rhetoric behind sometimes and look at the numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Fig18_1.png
Sweden also abolished its gift tax in 2004 and the new centre right government abolished the wealth tax in 2007
https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous-inheritance-tax
https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
I don't see how abolishing the tax is relevant- they had a hundred years of very high taxes, leaving the wealth distribution very different to the UK, yet middle people still did fine. I am only saying it is not an argument against an inheritance tax that it owns with grossly unequal societies. Sweden in 2004 was not grossly unequal. In part because as you say, flats and rural houses are a huge component of the housing stock, not semi-D s in nice suburbs.
The cause was a faulty screen setting which caused some candidate names to be outside of the display area. The pollster cannot be certain how many canvas calls were effected, and rightly concluded the reliability of the poll was irretrievably flawed.
Sanders doesn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/02/coronavirus-deaths-hong-kong-health-workers-to-strike-china-border-
I can't see 50% of Americans vote for Trump.
For all its many very serious faults, the EU/EEA zone offers its citizens a safety net and opportunities that are just not available to most people on the planet, including most Americans. For me, post-Brexit being pro-European means fighting to ensure that the UK does not Americanise.
The US is an extraordinary country that leads the world in so many ways, but from healthcare, through education, to welfare, employment rights, life expectancy and the environment, the average European has a far better life than the average American.
The right wing Brexit elite wants to Americanise the UK. Johnson may talk the language of social democracy, but those behind him in the Commons, in the Tory party in the country and in the right wing media do not believe in it. At some point relatively soon that will matter a hell of a lot.
If we want to invest in public services in the UK, if we want to improve infrastructure, if we want to retain the safety net, improve social care for the elderly and so on, then it has to be paid for. That means higher taxes. If Starmer is saying this he is being honest. That is a good thing.
No doubt there is a huge homelessness issue in the US, particularly California, however, it's a much more complicated problem than EU vs US as your post makes out. It's a glib and cheap shot at what is a very serious issue that gets to the heart of the opiod addiction crisis that has swepts across the whole of the US.
Anyone who imagines him going to Sweden and being a centrist there is deluded. Labour's manifestos (especially 2017) were heavily moderated to fit this country's political climate (McDonnell is MUCH more of a pragmatist).
If he was in Sweden he wouldn't need to do that, and would still be considered far to the left.
The rich don't want high rise building. The environmentalists stop the city expanding. The community groups stop "gentrification".
If you have more people you need more places for them to sleep. Inside or outside is just a choice at that point.
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1223967815926939651?s=20
I believe I mentioned before encountering an environmental lawyer who is furious with the current policy on off shore wind development - apparently planning just being approved without multi-year enquiries is morally wrong. It seems that the industry has learnt from early issues and simply includes detailed studies of effects on fish, birds, radar coverage, shipping etc in their plans. Which means that there is sometimes nothing left to oppose with.
Not that I disagree of the likely outcomes there, but even so.
In recent years ecologists have mapped the concentrations of the fish and birds.
The Evul Off Shore Wind Farming Barstewards simply put their Windmills of Death where there are few if any birds. The absolute scum. Don't they understand that their are mortgages to be paid, careers to be built in opposing their works?
1. Speeches from volunteers for each candidate (not all sites will have a volunteer for every candidate)
2. The initial vote (when people stand in areas of rooms to indicate support)
3. The opportunity to realign if your group is too small to be 'viable' (note the threshold for this differs depending on how large a caucus site it is)
4. The final vote
5. Converting #4 into 'State delegate equivalents'.
So...give it a good hour or two. At least.
Rather like with Corbyn and Labour, if the Dem primary votes pick Bernie it could well split the party.
The US healthcare system is a mess, agreed, but with 51% of the funding coming from the federal government and a mountain of regulation, at federal, state and even local level, and its hard to call it a failer of the free market. even there there are some good aspects of the US system, I would estimate that a good 60%-80%
of Americans get better healthcare than in the UK.
Within the EU, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, all have healthcare systems based fare more around competing providers and something approximating a market.and has vastly better results than the NHS. if you want better healthcare this is the way to go, not blindly more tax and more spending.
The other issue is the featherbedding of contracts. All the nice little games of layering - subcontracting repeatedly, so that no one layer makes too much profit...
I think you should try to be a bit ahead of the curve in your own time. Do not just accept things as they are but equally do not get too visionary and bleeding edge. If you do this you don't connect and persuade, you look like a crank or a dreamer. For example, argue for Trans people to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else but do not start questioning the whole construct of gender, claiming it's outdated, that there is no such binary reality as "men" and "women". This might well become an accepted and obvious truth one day - I can certainly imagine it - but for now leave this to the realms of fiction.
Do YOU think Sanders can beat Trump btw?
If the numbers released from the Iowa poll are true, the Bernie should be sinking in the betting and Warren and Bluttigieg rising.
Why?
Because second choices.
No-one wins the Democratic Iowa caucus - with its 15% hurdle at the precinct level (and sometimes higher in smaller precincts) - on 23%. Yeah, you would win it in the Republican caucus with a field this split. But not in the Democratic one, because second choices.
To win the Iowa caucuses by a clear margin, Sanders needed Warren to be struggling to be viable. He needed her on 13-14%. Because if she was there, and he was on 25-27%, then he'd pick up the vast majority of her second choices and stroll to victory. But on this poll Warren is likely viable everywhere. Warren, in fact, will be picking up delegates on second choices. She may even have a shout of getting ahead of Sanders.
So, on this poll, the following candidates are unlikely to get delegates: Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Yang, Steyer, Gabbard. Candidates in the 10-14% range won't get that many delegates either, because they'll miss out on the 15% in most precincts.
So, we need to ask where the 5% of people who probably wanted to vote for Bloomberg will go. My view is that they will go to the most viable moderate candidate.
And where will the 10% of voters who supported Klobuchar go? I'd reckon they will split - probably fairly evenly - between Warren and the most viable moderate candidate.
And what of the 50-60% of the 14% who support Biden? Because in the majority of precincts he won't be viable. Somehow, I think they will mostly find the most viable moderate candidate to vote for.
Sanders will of course pick up some second choice votes. I'd reckon he gets all the Gabbard votes (say 2%), and perhaps a third of the Yang votes (another 2%).
But realistically, there are more moderate second choices to share out than there are left wing ones. And Warren being so high in this poll is not great news for him.
My consistent view has been that - pretty rapidly - the Democratic nomination process would find a moderate champion, and a left wing champion. If either wing took a long time to find their champion, then they would be in trouble. This poll has two viable left wing candidates. (That being said, if Biden is really at 16-17%, then the poll has two viable moderate candidates too. There's a very tight window between success and failure with the 15% hurdle.)
The West Coast is never too hot and never too cold, and therefore even in parts run by the Republicans (like Orange County and historically San Diego), you have lots of homelessness.
That sead, I'm not sure this impeachment things is going to pan out the way Democratic strategists are hoping. The hard left have been pushing for impeachment almost sins he was invigorated, but things that satisfy the deepest deisers of your core supporters, are rarely the things that 'swing' swing voters. If Trump 'wins', he may look stronger at the end, and could leave those who pushed for impeachment looking silly.