This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
An interesting factor is the behaviour of companies in the supply chains.
Many have furloughed nearly all the staff. On building supplier is trying to run its operations with a couple of secretaries, while orders are piling up.
This causes me to wonder - how many businesses will go under because of this kind of stupidity?
Alternatively, will we suddenly find the productivity gap closing in the UK?
Any middle manager still on furlough should be seriously worried.
What about the flunkey of a middle manager? Asking for a friend.
Does the flunkey do the middle manager's actual work ?
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
I think another weakness in BlackRook's analysis - and it is an interesting one, and I'm not doing it down as a whole, just adding to it - is that it does not take into account 2014-2015 when the Tory response to winning INdyref was to downgrade Scottish MPs at Westminster the vcery next morning, and to regard the existence of elected Scottish MPs in Westminster, taking part in coalition politics, as somehow inherently illegitimate (photoshopped photos of Mr Miliband in Mr Salmond's pocket). Those were certainly not acts of the Scottish C&UP, but the Scots Tories got some of the blame - and partly fairly in that they supported them.
An then the Westminster Tories doubled down in 2017. Ruth Davidson got 12 Tory MPs elected in Scotland, only for their views to be totally ignored in favour of those of the DUP.
Gratitude doesn't get you as much as leverage. Ruth's gang could not realistically threaten to torpedo the government anytime they wanted.
Still, the DUP got what was coming to them, serves them right for pushing things too much.
Of the top 50 LD target seats, 43 are held by the Tories and just 4 are held by Labour so the LDs need to pick a leader to appeal to Tory Remain voters in those seats at the next general election. Davey being on the liberal wing of the party would be better placed to do that than Moran who is on the more social democratic wing
Historically the LDs need to mop up all the Labour votes to win those seats.
I expect Labour to be back in second place in Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster. If Tom Brake does not stand again, Labour might well progress at Carshalton too.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
The 'wealth tax' thieves don't care about basic facts of that sort. They just want to tax you on the largest sum possible, regardless of whether or not you can pay it or whether the full assessed value is actually yours or not!
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Try that here. Council tax is based on 1991 valuations. I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
Here are the averages for 1993/94
Band Property Value Rate of Council Tax
A Up to £40,000 £379 B £40,000 - £52,000 £442 C £52,000 - £68,000 £505 D £68,000 - £88,000 £568 E £88,000 - £120,000 £694 F £120,000 - £160,000 £820 G £160,000 - £320,000 £947 H £320,000 and Above £1,136
So band E is an average of £104,000 and was 0.67%. My council tax is 0.82% of the 2018 value. And if my tax was based off the G value as was back then it'd be less than half what it is now !
The tragedy for the Lib Dems is that neither Davey nor Moran are the right fit for today.
The best hope is for Moran to soften her madder streak and obvious private education and model herself of an the NZ pm.
Davey is a total dead loss.
What other options do the Lib Dem’s actually have?
Wilson or Farron would be better.
Farron was poor. His evangelical Christianity was a major problem as he couldn't see past his resurgent faith (which I share to some extent) that what he thinks isn't what everyone thinks. I struggle to think of something more illiberal than ramming something as personal as your own faith down other people's throats.
Farron may well have been poor, bit is still better positioned than Davey to make a fresh start as a third party.
If the strategy is for LDs to become the old one nation Tory party and attract Rudd and co, then Davey is your man.
Whed "red" Ed Milliband unveiled "One Nation Labour" I was delighted. One Nation politics is the politics of consensus - trying to accomodate those at the top making money without forgetting those at the bottom struggling to survive. Post war both main parties got it - MacMillan campaigning on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his Tory government were building etc.
So yes, I do want Davey to be One Nation. And to attract more people like Gymah and Allen and Umunna and Berger. Bring in sane people with ideas from both parties, ditch the ideological baggage and do what works. Tory voters are people too. Any party that wants to for a government has to win the support of currently Tory voters. It isn't some kind of negative mark to say so...
It’s a strategy. Go full unapologetically pro coalition. Become the old Tory party. Get a few big hitters like Rudd, Clarke and Gauke to join. A risk. But an option.
We're a third party. Soft left but extending into the soft right. With Labour and Tory moving quite significantly along their own left right axes it feels impossible to triangulate a position against them even if it was sensible to do so.
Aren't most voters a coalition? This government has a thumping majority precisely because punters went blue for the first time ever. Within the space of 25 years we have seen all kinds of unlikely seats flip between various colours whether it be Labour winning unlikely southern places then the Tories unlikely northern ones. Some have been red yellow and blue in less than a decade. People are far more open to ideas and far less wedded to old habits or loyalties than they were.
I blame the LDs for unlocking Pandora’s box. They’ve done it twice. Once by giving the Tories their shot at power and offering little restraint. And then most recently by giving Boris his December election. They just can’t help themselves. I think it makes them feel important, which is real what they crave.
Yes, the clamour for a December election by the LDs was somewhat odd and counter productive, but don't forget the real mastermind behind Johnson's stunning early victory was Jeremy Corbyn.
How so? You can blame Corbyn for many, many things, but not that. Once the Lib Dens failed to hold the line it all came crashing down.
Corbyn had been banging on about an election since 2017. Even when the writing was on the wall that against Johnson in 2019 Labour would be hung out to dry, he still went for it. Corbyn could have prevented a December 2019 election. The one big upside is that from that decision, Corbyn is no more.
Corbyn lost his veto for a December election once the LDs and SNP agreed to support it.His acquiescence was no longer needed.
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
I'm pretty sceptical the SCON vote is moving directly to the SNP. I think it's more a case of unionists leaving them for SLAB, but SLAB are shedding more pro-indy voters to the SNP. Hence why the SLAB vote share is roughly the same.
You are seeing this purely through the prism of Indy vs Union. That would be more relevant in a Westminster poll. Relative competence in handling COVID could well be driving older Scottish Tories worried about their health straight to the SNP.
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
Irrelevant. Different parts of the country have, at different times, suffered from the "Governments we didn't vote for" problem. Here in Eastern England (population: about the same as Scotland) we had the reverse problem: the thirteen years of Blair and Brown was a succession of "Governments we didn't vote for" but had to put up with anyway.
The point is that the useless Unionists failed to come up with a proper response to this problem. It would've been perfectly legitimate to argue that it is impossible for the whole country to have what it votes for at the same time, but that this alone is no good reason for smashing it to pieces (does the fact that the wishes of the Central Belt will always outweigh those of the Highlands necessitate the creation of a Caithness & Sutherland Independence Party, for example?) Thus, there was nothing wrong with the unitary state that existed prior to 1999, or at any rate nothing that couldn't have been solved with more powers for local city and county councils, rather than setting up devolved Parliaments.
Alternatively, they could've argued for a federal state, saying that there should be a greater say for Scotland in its own affairs but that this can only work if the same is done for all the nations of the UK, so that every MP and every voter continues to enjoy equal rights as under the unitary system.
They didn't do either. They insisted on a dog's breakfast.
All compromises look like dog's breakfasts. East of England could have ended up with the nice regional assembly that the North East voted down in 2004, although I doubt 1 in 10 people could define what East of England actually entails.
Yes, the clamour for a December election by the LDs was somewhat odd and counter productive, but don't forget the real mastermind behind Johnson's stunning early victory was Jeremy Corbyn.
This is an old argument which never goes anywhere, but I completely disagree with this bit of conventional wisdom. The December election was a bad option, but better than the alternatives for the party.
Johnson's Brexit Withdrawal Bill passed at a 2nd reading, it was only the very short programme motion which was rejected. The Lib Dems had 3 options:
1. Block an election, see a longer programme motion be passed and then the bill be passed, have an election in early 2020 once Brexit was confirmed; 2. Block an election, see the bill be passed as #1, continue blocking elections (and everything else?) until 2022 or whenever opposition discipline broke down; or 3. Vote for an election taking place before the bill was passed and hope for a shock result like 2017 allowing a 2nd Ref coalition to form.
#3 is hella risky, but #1 and #2 are even worse. Both end the final chance to stop Brexit (which, whatever your views on it, was a key policy of the party) and there's no reason to believe the election would have gone worse for Johnson that 2019 did. Especially option #2, which would have been even more establishment vs the people's choice than we had!
Perhaps there was an option which I've missed, but I don't see how the Lib Dems could have delayed an election to a better time (which isn't to say December was a good time, but that things weren't going to get better if it was blocked for a while) or had a better chance to stop Brexit than an election (which, again, isn't to say December 2019 was a good chance to stop Brexit but it was a better chance than doing so after the Withdrawal Bill was passed!).
It may be hindsight , but had the election been delayed to late Feb or early March it would have been much less of a Brexit election - indeed the issue would suddenly have become pretty minor in the context of other concerns.
This is why I think the economy is screwed, people are not going to be going out in a hurry.
Several friends sent me vid clips from empty pubs. Which is good news for pandemic control, bad news for the pubs. Do people want to go to pubs as much? Drinking at home is so much cheaper
Certainly what me and my friends have found. Why bother when you can drink in your garden (if you're lucky enough to have one)?
Personally, I think as long as the risk of corona is there, people will go out less and spend less money. And that is why encouraging people won't work as there want to protect themselves overrides any idea to spend money.
Additionally, I have certainly found I can save a lot of money by not doing things I don't really miss and I intend to continue that.
I really think we're in a giant mess.
Not only have I found I don’t need to spend money on so many things anymore, I am also shit-scared of losing my job. My household income is already down around 20%.
I am praying for a V-shape, but I can’t see it.
Some advanced data we've been seeing (backed up by the Bank a few weeks after I first posted about it) - the economy is bouncing back, order books are filling up, certain sectors are having to recall workers earlier than expected, non-hospitality services are growing again, and at a pretty fast rate, manufacturing is growing much faster than expected.
Businesses are waiting to see what the fall out of the 4th July opening is in terms of viral growth before committing more money to recalling employees. We should get a good sense of the latter by early next week, if there's no spike in infections then I expect another wave of employees being recalled and economic growth to pick up again.
The advanced data research team thinks we'll end up at -7% for the year without a vaccine and at -1% with a vaccine. I'm a bit more pessimistic but around that level.
Yes, and I have heard similar from other analysts. It is some reassurance. But I don’t see it on the street. Consumer spending seems permanently dented - whether from fear of going outside; renewed prudency; or increased economic insecurity.
From a theoretical perspective we would go better to have an economy that is less dependent on (imported) consumer spending and more on manufacturing and trade.
The transition may be more abrupt that desired, but the outcome may be better in the long run
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Is it? My most important asset is my education, training and experience.
And even if what you say is true, the values of each of those would be subject to massive change if one or more of those is taxed.
Taxing land or houses works as the cannot be easily hidden. The valuation of them is the sort of problem that can bring down a government (the Poll Tax as it became known was an attempt to avoid having to revalue all of the UK housing for the purpose of rates), but taxing someone on the basis of how the stock market is doing would be a great way of destroying the ability of firms to use it to raise funds through it.
To be a PB pedant, the Scots had recently had a major revaluation (which was one reason the Poll Tax's initial imposition in Sxotland only was so badly received).
Wasn't the Scottish rates revaluation of 1986 the main reason the Conservatives did badly in 1987 ?
I believe so, though that was slightly before I moved to Scotland.
The tragedy for the Lib Dems is that neither Davey nor Moran are the right fit for today.
The best hope is for Moran to soften her madder streak and obvious private education and model herself of an the NZ pm.
Davey is a total dead loss.
What other options do the Lib Dem’s actually have?
Wilson or Farron would be better.
Farron was poor. His evangelical Christianity was a major problem as he couldn't see past his resurgent faith (which I share to some extent) that what he thinks isn't what everyone thinks. I struggle to think of something more illiberal than ramming something as personal as your own faith down other people's throats.
Farron may well have been poor, bit is still better positioned than Davey to make a fresh start as a third party.
If the strategy is for LDs to become the old one nation Tory party and attract Rudd and co, then Davey is your man.
Whed "red" Ed Milliband unveiled "One Nation Labour" I was delighted. One Nation politics is the politics of consensus - trying to accomodate those at the top making money without forgetting those at the bottom struggling to survive. Post war both main parties got it - MacMillan campaigning on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his Tory government were building etc.
So yes, I do want Davey to be One Nation. And to attract more people like Gymah and Allen and Umunna and Berger. Bring in sane people with ideas from both parties, ditch the ideological baggage and do what works. Tory voters are people too. Any party that wants to for a government has to win the support of currently Tory voters. It isn't some kind of negative mark to say so...
It’s a strategy. Go full unapologetically pro coalition. Become the old Tory party. Get a few big hitters like Rudd, Clarke and Gauke to join. A risk. But an option.
We're a third party. Soft left but extending into the soft right. With Labour and Tory moving quite significantly along their own left right axes it feels impossible to triangulate a position against them even if it was sensible to do so.
Aren't most voters a coalition? This government has a thumping majority precisely because punters went blue for the first time ever. Within the space of 25 years we have seen all kinds of unlikely seats flip between various colours whether it be Labour winning unlikely southern places then the Tories unlikely northern ones. Some have been red yellow and blue in less than a decade. People are far more open to ideas and far less wedded to old habits or loyalties than they were.
I blame the LDs for unlocking Pandora’s box. They’ve done it twice. Once by giving the Tories their shot at power and offering little restraint. And then most recently by giving Boris his December election. They just can’t help themselves. I think it makes them feel important, which is real what they crave.
Look at the 2010 election result. I was a Labour activist. Believe me I ran the numbers hoping there was a way to keep the Tories out. There wasn't - as various Labour cabinet secretaries pointedly told Brown. The Tories were taking office one way or another because thats what people voted for. A minority Tory government would have gone back to the country (they're good at that...) and won a proper majority. We've seen what majority Tory government does, the "little restraint" delivered a huge amount that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
Again, I don't know your politics but I get what you're saying. It became absurd the way that Clegg ran the LD side in the coalition. LibDem MPs voted more loyally for the Tory bills than Tory MPs did. If Arlene Foster could make demands with menaces then Clegg should have learned to do the same.
The numbers were there for a Rainbow coalition in 2010. How long it might have lasted is another matter, but Labour + LDs + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + Alliance would have been a small majority. I have never gone along with the view that Cameron could simply have called another election in the context of C& S. As long as an alternative Government could have been formed from the existing House of Commons a further Dissolution might not have been granted - ie if Miliband , Clegg et al reached an agreement.
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
Report on BBC from a pub. Landlord explaining that everyone is given allocated seating with table service. Meanwhile right behind him were several groups standing at the bar.
Of the top 50 LD target seats, 43 are held by the Tories and just 4 are held by Labour so the LDs need to pick a leader to appeal to Tory Remain voters in those seats at the next general election. Davey being on the liberal wing of the party would be better placed to do that than Moran who is on the more social democratic wing
Historically the LDs need to mop up all the Labour votes to win those seats.
In none of them is the Labour vote above 10% and Labour voters there will almost all be tactically voting for the LDs anyway, it is Tory Remain voters they have to win over in them
The circumstances needed are a degree of unhappiness with a Tory government and relative calmness about the prospect of a Labour one.
LDs only do well when the Tory vote is going down.
The Alliance did prety well in 1983 and 1987 when the Tories were very strong.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
58% of Tory voters in England believe the UK government should not grant Scotland an indyref2 despite Brexit as the important issues are 'all or mostly the same'. Scottish Tory voters believe Boris should block indyref2 by a huge 85% to 13% margin.
Overall 42% of English voters believe Boris should block indyref2, 37% think he should allow it according to the details of the Panelbase poll
Haud yer horses Scotland, the government of rsoles that you didn't vote for is not going to allow a referendum cos the folk that did vote for these rsoles says they shouldn't. Hope you're ok with that?
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
How else would nice people know who to look down on?
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
I'm pretty sceptical the SCON vote is moving directly to the SNP. I think it's more a case of unionists leaving them for SLAB, but SLAB are shedding more pro-indy voters to the SNP. Hence why the SLAB vote share is roughly the same.
You are seeing this purely through the prism of Indy vs Union. That would be more relevant in a Westminster poll. Relative competence in handling COVID could well be driving older Scottish Tories worried about their health straight to the SNP.
I was asuming that voters were shuffling along the spectrom, so to speak, from Troy to Labour, etc., with net results that we see. But direct shift of the old to the SNP? Now that would be something to watch out for.
Tax should be broad, low, simple and hard to avoid.
Wealth taxes fail on the second and third.
An annual property tax is far better.
LVT scores highly on all 4 counts. As simple as any annual tax. Low, as a % of the total value. Hard to avoid - you can't move land to Monaco or the Caymans.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
Seems Panelbase have cornered the market in Scotch polling.
....and its irrelevant because there isn't going to be a poll that the sainted Nicola doesn't really want .. Agitate for it but have it.. naaah...
Well, no one cares what you think, but I look forward to your overlords carrying one with that same line.
'Curtice said: “Never before have the foundations of public support for the Union looked so weak. Unsurprisingly, for many nationalists, the past three months have exemplified how Scotland could govern itself better as an independent, small country. More importantly, it may have persuaded some former unionists of the merits of that claim, too.”
There is increasing gloom among senior unionist politicians in Conservative and Labour ranks in Scotland that independence is inevitable.'
It does look that way. It's very sad. As a Unionist resident in Edinburgh I'm not sure how I can convince people not to want to be Independent. Identities, once formed, are hard to change.
Looking back, the 2015 GE campaign looks crucial. The Conservatives in England made the choice to trade Scotland in return for political advantage in England, by arguing that a Labour government with support from SNP MPs would be something to fear.
They learnt the lesson that bashing Scotland was to their advantage in England, and they haven't looked back.
Except that why should Conservatives (or anybody else) in England welcome a Labour minority Government - led by anyone, let alone Jeremy Corbyn - propped up by Scottish Nationalist votes? Rejecting that idea has nothing whatsoever to do with "bashing Scotland" and everything to do with not wanting our domestic Government puppeteered by a movement which only stands for election in Scotland, only cares about Scotland and which was created for the sole purpose of getting away from the rest of the UK just as soon as possible.
It's also worth reminding everyone at this stage that the Union hasn't been brought to the point of death by the English, who are the usual scapegoats for Scottish Unionists who feel eternally let down by us. The Scottish Unionists themselves are responsible for garrotting that which they claimed to cherish. The Scottish Parliament and the associated warped model of asymmetric devolution was championed by Dewar, Robertson and all the rest of the myopic Scottish Labour numpties who thought that they could at once create a one-party state that they would control forever, "kill Nationalism stone dead" AND somehow achieve all of this with no consequences whatever for Scotland's relationship with England. The Scottish Tories then finished the job by propping up the first SNP Government in exchange for being petted and fed the occasional biscuit by Salmond, all the while playing along with the "more powers" agenda and showing zero interest in creating a sustainable settlement - either through campaigning to scrap devolution or, if we assume that this would've been impossible to sell, demanding full federalism with a fixed end point to the devolution process.
This isn't all on the Scottish Unionists - Blair didn't have the foresight to see where devolution would end, either - but ultimately it was you lot who insisted on special treatment and thought you could get away with it, and it's no use blaming the English (Tory or otherwise) for the results. Do not turn your gaze southwards in the search for Britain's assassin. Look down, and see the length of bloody piano wire in your own hands.
Yes, but your starting point ignores that English Thatcherism was imposed on a Scottish populace that never voted for it.
I think another weakness in BlackRook's analysis - and it is an interesting one, and I'm not doing it down as a whole, just adding to it - is that it does not take into account 2014-2015 when the Tory response to winning INdyref was to downgrade Scottish MPs at Westminster the vcery next morning, and to regard the existence of elected Scottish MPs in Westminster, taking part in coalition politics, as somehow inherently illegitimate (photoshopped photos of Mr Miliband in Mr Salmond's pocket). Those were certainly not acts of the Scottish C&UP, but the Scots Tories got some of the blame - and partly fairly in that they supported them.
An then the Westminster Tories doubled down in 2017. Ruth Davidson got 12 Tory MPs elected in Scotland, only for their views to be totally ignored in favour of those of the DUP.
Gratitude doesn't get you as much as leverage. Ruth's gang could not realistically threaten to torpedo the government anytime they wanted.
Still, the DUP got what was coming to them, serves them right for pushing things too much.
Ruth's gang, as you call them, have also changed their views to conform with Mr Johnson rather than the majority of their constituents (at least as they voted in the 2017 referendum). Even Ms Davidson did so, IIRC, though her walking away rather suggests her true views.
Tax should be broad, low, simple and hard to avoid.
Wealth taxes fail on the second and third.
An annual property tax is far better.
LVT scores highly on all 4 counts. As simple as any annual tax. Low, as a % of the total value. Hard to avoid - you can't move land to Monaco or the Caymans.
I'd put it on income generating land, but yes in theory it's a very difficult tax to avoid.
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
I'm pretty sceptical the SCON vote is moving directly to the SNP. I think it's more a case of unionists leaving them for SLAB, but SLAB are shedding more pro-indy voters to the SNP. Hence why the SLAB vote share is roughly the same.
I was thinking much the same actually. But net loss is net loss.
Incidentally, I looked through that Epstein address book someone posted on here and was not that surprised to find that I knew personally a number of the people listed and even less surprised to find that I have investigated one, for alleged corruption of public officials.
Boring as it may seem I am rather more interested in how Epstein made - and kept - his money. He seems to have risen without trace.
The sorts of people who were friendly with Epstein are exactly the sorts of people you would *expect* to be friendly with him.
The odd thing is (going solely by his wikipedia entry) is that he lost huge amounts of money on numerous occasions. Perhaps his fortune was nowhere near what people thought it was.
Money laundering is what came to my mind.
That, and outright theft.
He was involved in at least one very large Ponzi scheme (and got out before it collapsed), and persuaded at least new billionaire to give him power of attorney to ‘sort out his finances’... In August 2019, following Epstein's second incarceration and prior to his death, Wexner addressed the Wexner Foundation in writing, releasing a statement that his former financial advisor, Jeffrey Epstein, had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him and from his family....
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Despite our violent disagreement on Brexit, I often find your views and values align closely to mine.
I don’t want Scotland to go. And I am not relaxed about it, it would mean a wretching alteration in my identity.
The Conservatives seems profoundly uninterested in the Union. I really feel that it is up to Keir and Labour to make the positive case for a positive, strong and united Britain.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
Wrong.
At Holyrood 2016 SLab got 22% on the constituency vote and 19% on the list, the SLDs 7% and 5% and the Tories 22% on both.
So SLab down 7% and 4%, the Tories down 2% and 4% and the LDs down 1% and up 1%.
This actually wouldn't be a terrible idea. 1st Division has just become a repository for half the army's infantry battalions with zero logistical, comms, engineering or artillery support. So what's the fucking point of it? It can't be deployed for anything other than brawling in pubs.
Brawling in pubs looks like a vital part of BJ's bounce back strategy for the nation, so dulce et decorum to tie one on and lamp a civvy.
The Tories are weak on the Union, and the SNP are obsessed with national identity, with a poor record on health, education and economic outcomes.
Labour has an opportunity to set out a vision for a stronger, prouder, more prosperous Scotland.
First step is get rid of that idiot Leonard.
Whom would you rather see in charge, as a matter of interest? And do they have any skeletons in or out of cupbaords, such as Jackie Baillie's support for Trident, which might not go down well in the members' election?
Sarwar. And get rid of Trident in favour of a quantum physics capability in Glasgow.
Hmm. Would he win? He had problems in 2017 when he lost to Mr Leonard, and I'm not sure he has remedied them completely.
Trident is of course reserved to Westminster ...
What SLAB need right now is someone who comes across as human and is likeable. What about Daniel Johnson (the Edinburgh Southern MSP)?
Whohe? I had to check! Not a high public profile, esp as he resigned his spokesperson's position (= Shadow Cabinet in Westminster) in 2019. But that isn't quite so crucial for an internal party election. A Remainer, and not a Corbynite I presume. And to his credit his company paid the living wage early - a possible advantage over one likely opponent given what came out in the 2017 election.
Despite our violent disagreement on Brexit, I often find your views and values align closely to mine.
I don’t want Scotland to go. And I am not relaxed about it, it would mean a wretching alteration in my identity.
The Conservatives seems profoundly uninterested in the Union. I really feel that it is up to Keir and Labour to make the positive case for a positive, strong and united Britain.
Did you listen to Keiran's podcast with Alastair Campbell and Ayesha Hazarika? Neither seemed particularly keen on fighting to preserve the union if there is another referendum.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Because they think of themselves more as British rather than English. Take away the UK and that nationality goes away.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
How else would nice people know who to look down on?
It is usually the most left wing people pushing for unique architecture. It's probably the same sentiment behind brutalist design.
Despite our violent disagreement on Brexit, I often find your views and values align closely to mine.
I don’t want Scotland to go. And I am not relaxed about it, it would mean a wretching alteration in my identity.
The Conservatives seems profoundly uninterested in the Union. I really feel that it is up to Keir and Labour to make the positive case for a positive, strong and united Britain.
Did you listen to Keiran's podcast with Alastair Campbell and Ayesha Hazarika? Neither seemed particularly keen on fighting to preserve the union if there is another referendum.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
I don't believe you - the reason some people in England care about it are not difficult to understand in the slightest, since it is the same as any other Union, about shared identity. Some had it for the EU, others didn't. Some have it for the UK, others do not.
It is totally understandable if people do not share that feeling, or feel it in a smaller way than others, but it is not believable that people cannot understand that feeling or would be mystified by it. Children are able to grasp concepts of patriotism for national bodies borders and political unions, for better and worse. That is why while the vote and decision is for the people of Scotland, the issue is not solely one of interest to them, and the oft used talk of it being no one elses' business is untrue and unfair, not least since, encouraging polling for Indy notwithstanding, it is not a settled issue for Scots yet.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
To be fair to HYUFD, he closely follows the lead of whoever is running the Tory party, so the craven attitude is not all his own.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
I don't believe you - the reason some people in England care about it are not difficult to understand in the slightest, since it is the same as any other Union, about shared identity. Some had it for the EU, others didn't. Some have it for the UK, others do not.
It is totally understandable if people do not share that feeling, or feel it in a smaller way than others, but it is not believable that people cannot understand that feeling or would be mystified by it. Children are able to grasp concepts of patriotism for national bodies borders and political unions, for better and worse. That is why while the vote and decision is for the people of Scotland, the issue is not solely one of interest to them.
I've seen polls which suggest the reverse - that the supposedly most Unionist voters [edit] in England aka Brexiters, Tories etc. actually care less about keeping the union than Labour and LD voters (ironic really given their party histories on both sides). I'm not sure what is causing the different results - different questions perhaps.
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
How would property wealth be calculated? For example my house is worth circa 240K but my equity in said home is much lower than that.
Like you say, your house is worth circa 240k.
But that is not my “wealth”. That is the bank’s wealth.
Ok. I largely think any wealth tax should be levied on the full value of your property for practical reasons, but if you want to levy it only is on the un-mortgaged equity - obviously that is easy to work out too.
Two of the best ways of taxing property wealth are:-
1. Having more council tax bands at the higher end. 2. Abolishing the PPR exemption from CGT and levying it when a house is sold. No arguments then about not having the money to pay or value etc - both of which are an issue with an annual wealth tax.
I know there is also LVT but I don’t know enough about it to comment.
You need a roll over for the abolition of PPR to work.
Say someone buys a flat for 200,000
A few years later he gets married and has a kid. The market has performed strongly and he can sell his house for 300,000
But he has to pay 40,000 in CGT so can only afford to buy a smaller house - so isn’t incentivised to move.
However if you maintain the relief for any principal property acquired in the next 12 months then it works (ie you end up paying capital gains only when you are downsizing and releasing permanent capital from the principal residence)
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Because they think of themselves more as British rather than English. Take away the UK and that nationality goes away.
Butr they aren#t British by nationality. They are UK by nationality. What happens in your tyhought experiment if you remove NI? That destroys the UK.
Actually SLAB and SLD are holding their position on the vote, with only a slight (within error limts?) improvement if any. It's the Tories letting down the Unionist side. Unless you think that Mr Corbyn was enough of a bogeyman?
Wrong.
At Holyrood 2016 SLab got 22% on the constituency vote and 19% on the list, the SLDs 7% and 5% and the Tories 22% on both.
So SLab down 7% and 4%, the Tories down 2% and 4% and the LDs down 1% and up 1%.
So it is SLab letting the Unionist side down
WE were discussing the polls in this week, not last decade.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
You’ve made it clear you don’t care that if by refusing a referendum, you increase support for independence, and thus that it will likely happen eventually.
You do not care about the union. Simple. You only care about yourself, and your party’s reputation.
It wont work anyway. Even if a Starmer Government granted a referendum that passes, History books will likely write that it was Brexit and the Conservative government that contributed massively towards the event. Your party will be blamed anyway.
Slight problem - he was reported as advising people to vote Tory rather than Labour to keep the SNP out, so long as Tories voted Labour in constituencies such as his own, naturally. Interview with the Graun in 2017.
Also, he's a Westminster MP. Not exactly FM material therefore.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
Bevcause the doors hadn't yet been repainted to indicate which were the privately owned houses?
Slight problem - he was reported as advising people to vote Tory rather than Labour to keep the SNP out, so long as Tories voted Labour in constituencies such as his own, naturally. Interview with the Graun in 2017.
Also, he's a Westminster MP. Not exactly FM material therefore.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
You’ve made it clear you don’t care that if by refusing a referendum, you increase support for independence, and thus that it will likely happen eventually.
You do not care about the union. Simple. You only care about yourself, and your party’s reputation.
It wont work anyway. Even if a Starmer Government granted a referendum that passes, History books will likely write that it was Brexit and the Conservative government that contributed massively towards the event. Your party will be blamed anyway.
If you give in and grant indyref then there is a 50% chance of independence, if you refuse and block another indyref2 there is a 0% chance.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Because they think of themselves more as British rather than English. Take away the UK and that nationality goes away.
Butr they aren#t British by nationality. They are UK by nationality. What happens in your tyhought experiment if you remove NI? That destroys the UK.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
You’ve made it clear you don’t care that if by refusing a referendum, you increase support for independence, and thus that it will likely happen eventually.
You do not care about the union. Simple. You only care about yourself, and your party’s reputation.
It wont work anyway. Even if a Starmer Government granted a referendum that passes, History books will likely write that it was Brexit and the Conservative government that contributed massively towards the event. Your party will be blamed anyway.
If you give in and grant indyref then there is a 50% chance of independence, if you refuse and block another indyref2 there is a 0% chance.
Simples
I see from your reply that you read very little of my post. Unsurprising.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
1 referendum for a union that's lasted over 300 years. Another one doesn't sound like too much of a stretch.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Because they think of themselves more as British rather than English. Take away the UK and that nationality goes away.
Butr they aren#t British by nationality. They are UK by nationality. What happens in your tyhought experiment if you remove NI? That destroys the UK.
The passport disagrees with you.
Really? Just fished mine out and i t says "UK of GB and NI" up front. It does say British in the small print inside. But I suppose, howerver, those in NI are really "British and Irish" anyway, so in that sense you are right.
There is a great deal about the English and their ways that mystify me but this apparently sincere giving of fucks about whether Scotland want to be independent or not is right up at the top of the list.
Because they think of themselves more as British rather than English. Take away the UK and that nationality goes away.
Butr they aren#t British by nationality. They are UK by nationality. What happens in your tyhought experiment if you remove NI? That destroys the UK.
The passport disagrees with you.
Really? Just fished mine out and i t says "UK of GB and NI" up front. It does say British in the small print inside. But I suppose, howerver, those in NI are really "British and Irish" anyway, so in that sense you are right.
On the bio page it says you are a British citizen. That's not the small print, that's your nationality.
Yes but as the Tories will block indyref2 and Sturgeon has said she will not declare UDI, unless and until Labour form another UK government there will be no second independence referendum and need to campaign for the Union
The Brexit referendum result suggests that it's more effective if you start rallying public support for your cause well before the referendum is officially declared (as UKIP did), rather than letting the other side get well ahead and only starting to tout the benefits of status quo once the starting gun is fired (as the pro-EU folks mostly did). "There isn't a referendum imminently so who cares what people think" seems a bit short-sighted...
As the Tories will never grant indyref2 for at least 10 years no it isn't.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
All you are telling us is that you don’t care about the union, you just don’t want to be the people who hammer the final nail into the coffin.
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
No, I care about the Union which is why I refuse to give in to the SNP and grant indyrefs every 5 minutes
1 referendum for a union that's lasted over 300 years. Another one doesn't sound like too much of a stretch.
How many should there be? I think the SNP would have one every year if they could.
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
How else would nice people know who to look down on?
The objection was by one of the social housing pressure groups - not by a bunch of Karens.
They seemed to regard it as self evident that the proles need to live in blank faced brick boxes without any attempt at adornment.
Perhaps window ledges lead to people becoming Tories? Bay windows result in Brexiters?
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
My favourite is when i extended our Socal house. The planners made me change it so it was *less* in keeping with the original as they were worried people couldn’t distinguish old from new
Tax should be broad, low, simple and hard to avoid.
Wealth taxes fail on the second and third.
An annual property tax is far better.
LVT scores highly on all 4 counts. As simple as any annual tax. Low, as a % of the total value. Hard to avoid - you can't move land to Monaco or the Caymans.
LVT is hard to communicate and calculate.
The tax base is also too narrow, with a huge amount also owned by tax exempt entities (colleges, churches, crown etc)
Wealth tax is a popular policy, it consistently polls well.
The key for Labour is targeting. A wealth tax to raise X to fund X. That is the key.
@Gardenwalker the key is to get the state building again.
We don't need the state building.
Yeah I agree. There’s no need for the the “state” to build. There’s no shortage of private builders.
Since Thatcher in effect banned the state from building, we have never sustained house building demand. It is essential the state builds, as well as the private sector.
If the private sector can build alone and meet demand then fine - but there is little evidence they can.
I am fairly relaxed about this one, we just need to build a shit tonne more houses.
By 1980 the reputation of council estate building was in ruins.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
The strange requirement that "social" housing has to look.. different.. is interesting.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
My favourite is when i extended our Socal house. The planners made me change it so it was *less* in keeping with the original as they were worried people couldn’t distinguish old from new
The widespread prejudice that council housing should be shoddy and sub-standard is actually really shocking when you think about it.
It is also very economically inefficient, since it impairs the property value of council housing itself, but also neighbouring private housing.
After nearly forty years of “experiment”, as far as I am concerned the jury is in: a healthy property market needs public sector development in the mix.
The tragedy for the Lib Dems is that neither Davey nor Moran are the right fit for today.
The best hope is for Moran to soften her madder streak and obvious private education and model herself of an the NZ pm.
Davey is a total dead loss.
What other options do the Lib Dem’s actually have?
Wilson or Farron would be better.
Farron was poor. His evangelical Christianity was a major problem as he couldn't see past his resurgent faith (which I share to some extent) that what he thinks isn't what everyone thinks. I struggle to think of something more illiberal than ramming something as personal as your own faith down other people's throats.
Farron may well have been poor, bit is still better positioned than Davey to make a fresh start as a third party.
If the strategy is for LDs to become the old one nation Tory party and attract Rudd and co, then Davey is your man.
Whed "red" Ed Milliband unveiled "One Nation Labour" I was delighted. One Nation politics is the politics of consensus - trying to accomodate those at the top making money without forgetting those at the bottom struggling to survive. Post war both main parties got it - MacMillan campaigning on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his Tory government were building etc.
So yes, I do want Davey to be One Nation. And to attract more people like Gymah and Allen and Umunna and Berger. Bring in sane people with ideas from both parties, ditch the ideological baggage and do what works. Tory voters are people too. Any party that wants to for a government has to win the support of currently Tory voters. It isn't some kind of negative mark to say so...
It’s a strategy. Go full unapologetically pro coalition. Become the old Tory party. Get a few big hitters like Rudd, Clarke and Gauke to join. A risk. But an option.
We're a third party. Soft left but extending into the soft right. With Labour and Tory moving quite significantly along their own left right axes it feels impossible to triangulate a position against them even if it was sensible to do so.
Aren't most voters a coalition? This government has a thumping majority precisely because punters went blue for the first time ever. Within the space of 25 years we have seen all kinds of unlikely seats flip between various colours whether it be Labour winning unlikely southern places then the Tories unlikely northern ones. Some have been red yellow and blue in less than a decade. People are far more open to ideas and far less wedded to old habits or loyalties than they were.
I blame the LDs for unlocking Pandora’s box. They’ve done it twice. Once by giving the Tories their shot at power and offering little restraint. And then most recently by giving Boris his December election. They just can’t help themselves. I think it makes them feel important, which is real what they crave.
Look at the 2010 election result. I was a Labour activist. Believe me I ran the numbers hoping there was a way to keep the Tories out. There wasn't - as various Labour cabinet secretaries pointedly told Brown. The Tories were taking office one way or another because thats what people voted for. A minority Tory government would have gone back to the country (they're good at that...) and won a proper majority. We've seen what majority Tory government does, the "little restraint" delivered a huge amount that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
Again, I don't know your politics but I get what you're saying. It became absurd the way that Clegg ran the LD side in the coalition. LibDem MPs voted more loyally for the Tory bills than Tory MPs did. If Arlene Foster could make demands with menaces then Clegg should have learned to do the same.
The numbers were there for a Rainbow coalition in 2010. How long it might have lasted is another matter, but Labour + LDs + SNP +Plaid + Green + SDLP + Alliance would have been a small majority. I have never gone along with the view that Cameron could simply have called another election in the context of C& S. As long as an alternative Government could have been formed from the existing House of Commons a further Dissolution might not have been granted - ie if Miliband , Clegg et al reached an agreement.
The numbers might have been there, just but the spirit wasn't. As was said of the Tories in Feb '74, whoever had or had 'won' the election, Labour had lost it. However, as I've repeatedly, and probably boringly said here, I agree with your second paragraph. Clegg handled the situation badly, certainly in retrospect. Whatever possessed him to take the non-job of DPM? If he'd insisted on Home Sec we could well have been spared a lot, if not all, of the Windrush angst. And a lot of decent people could have had happier lives.
Of the top 50 LD target seats, 43 are held by the Tories and just 4 are held by Labour so the LDs need to pick a leader to appeal to Tory Remain voters in those seats at the next general election. Davey being on the liberal wing of the party would be better placed to do that than Moran who is on the more social democratic wing
Historically the LDs need to mop up all the Labour votes to win those seats.
In none of them is the Labour vote above 10% and Labour voters there will almost all be tactically voting for the LDs anyway, it is Tory Remain voters they have to win over in them
The circumstances needed are a degree of unhappiness with a Tory government and relative calmness about the prospect of a Labour one.
LDs only do well when the Tory vote is going down.
The Alliance did prety well in 1983 and 1987 when the Tories were very strong.
The Tory vote went down in both those elections, if not by much. Whereas in 2017 and 2019 it went up.
ON TOPIC - What is the rationale for the existence of the Liberal Democrat Party? Seems to me its at best a spoiler, at worst a boutique. Isn't the true LD role the splitting of the center-left vote, to the advantage of the Conservative Party most of the time?
Heck, LDs have even failed at being a single-issue pro-European party, in part because Europhilia, in its purist form - and LDs are purists, aren't they? - is a minority tendency across the UK, and almost certainly always will be.
At least in Scotland and in Wales- as in old Ireland before - nationalist parties have much more potential for actually achieving their goals. Such as Irish Home Rule (ironically, not for one united but for two separate Irelands), the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Contrasted with such LD accomplishments as new stoplights and better sheep crossings here and there in a few lucky constituencies?
Is THAT the great LD dream? OR is it to cut a deal whenever it's (rarely) possible with the REAL political parties - the ones that will actually have a chance to run the government - to keep a handful of bad things from happening, or to give a handful of lucky parliamentarians the chance to be bit players in governments they cannot dominate, and for whose shortcoming they will inevitably be blamed?
ON TOPIC - What is the rationale for the existence of the Liberal Democrat Party? Seems to me its at best a spoiler, at worst a boutique. Isn't the true LD role the splitting of the center-left vote, to the advantage of the Conservative Party most of the time?
Heck, LDs have even failed at being a single-issue pro-European party, in part because Europhilia, in its purist form - and LDs are purists, aren't they? - is a minority tendency across the UK, and almost certainly always will be.
At least in Scotland and in Wales- as in old Ireland before - nationalist parties have much more potential for actually achieving their goals. Such as Irish Home Rule (ironically, not for one united but for two separate Irelands), the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Contrasted with such LD accomplishments as new stoplights and better sheep crossings here and there in a few lucky constituencies?
Is THAT the great LD dream? OR is it to cut a deal whenever it's (rarely) possible with the REAL political parties - the ones that will actually have a chance to run the government - to keep a handful of bad things from happening, or to give a handful of lucky parliamentarians the chance to be bit players in governments they cannot dominate, and for whose shortcoming they will inevitably be blamed?
Essentially it is to be the centrist party in the UK, while also offering an alternative to the Tories in posh areas or rural areas to voters who would never vote Labour
There is no justification for *not* supporting a wealth tax, but it needs to be accompanied by the elimination of stamp duty and council tax.
No justification? Try “defining what is meant by wealth is too difficult to be done anything like fairly”.
The great majority of wealth is held in property, pensions, and shares.
Housing is relatively easy.
The tough one is land, where you will be taxed on what an official guesses it is worth - without ever knowing whether it is suitable eg for having housing built there. To find that out costs perhaps 20k a hectare - ie going for outline permission.
In NZ there is still a “rates” system. Property (inc land) values are estimated and updated regularly by a independent body.
You can contest the values if you like.
It is entirely uncontroversial.
Try that here. Council tax is based on 1991 valuations. I wished I paid income tax based on my 1991 income.
Here are the averages for 1993/94
Band Property Value Rate of Council Tax
A Up to £40,000 £379 B £40,000 - £52,000 £442 C £52,000 - £68,000 £505 D £68,000 - £88,000 £568 E £88,000 - £120,000 £694 F £120,000 - £160,000 £820 G £160,000 - £320,000 £947 H £320,000 and Above £1,136
So band E is an average of £104,000 and was 0.67%. My council tax is 0.82% of the 2018 value. And if my tax was based off the G value as was back then it'd be less than half what it is now !
Mine is 3 x what G was and value would make it same group , bloody robbery.
Comments
Still, the DUP got what was coming to them, serves them right for pushing things too much.
They were building either slums in the sky or edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
Band Property Value Rate of Council Tax
A Up to £40,000 £379
B £40,000 - £52,000 £442
C £52,000 - £68,000 £505
D £68,000 - £88,000 £568
E £88,000 - £120,000 £694
F £120,000 - £160,000 £820
G £160,000 - £320,000 £947
H £320,000 and Above £1,136
So band E is an average of £104,000 and was 0.67%.
My council tax is 0.82% of the 2018 value. And if my tax was based off the G value as was back then it'd be less than half what it is now !
That would be more relevant in a Westminster poll.
Relative competence in handling COVID could well be driving older Scottish Tories worried about their health straight to the SNP.
The transition may be more abrupt that desired, but the outcome may be better in the long run
I have never gone along with the view that Cameron could simply have called another election in the context of C& S. As long as an alternative Government could have been formed from the existing House of Commons a further Dissolution might not have been granted - ie if Miliband , Clegg et al reached an agreement.
It's all bollocks.
However, I think it’s fair to say he voted with them rather than for them.
Tax should be broad, low, simple and hard to avoid.
Wealth taxes fail on the second and third.
An annual property tax is far better.
At one local planning open meeting, the objection was raised that the "social" housing units in the development looked (from the outside at least) exactly like the non-social housing. Can anyone explain to me why that is a problem?
As simple as any annual tax.
Low, as a % of the total value.
Hard to avoid - you can't move land to Monaco or the Caymans.
If it is granted it will be Labour doing the granting so Labour who will have to lead the No campaign
He was involved in at least one very large Ponzi scheme (and got out before it collapsed), and persuaded at least new billionaire to give him power of attorney to ‘sort out his finances’...
In August 2019, following Epstein's second incarceration and prior to his death, Wexner addressed the Wexner Foundation in writing, releasing a statement that his former financial advisor, Jeffrey Epstein, had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him and from his family....
https://twitter.com/jimbrunsden/status/1279699236997812225
You don’t care if your actions lead to Scottish Independence eventually, so long as it’s Labour who do it, so you can blame them.
Pretty craven really.
I don’t want Scotland to go. And I am not relaxed about it, it would mean a wretching alteration in my identity.
The Conservatives seems profoundly uninterested in the Union. I really feel that it is up to Keir and Labour to make the positive case for a positive, strong and united Britain.
At Holyrood 2016 SLab got 22% on the constituency vote and 19% on the list, the SLDs 7% and 5% and the Tories 22% on both.
So SLab down 7% and 4%, the Tories down 2% and 4% and the LDs down 1% and up 1%.
So it is SLab letting the Unionist side down
It is totally understandable if people do not share that feeling, or feel it in a smaller way than others, but it is not believable that people cannot understand that feeling or would be mystified by it. Children are able to grasp concepts of patriotism for national bodies borders and political unions, for better and worse.
That is why while the vote and decision is for the people of Scotland, the issue is not solely one of interest to them, and the oft used talk of it being no one elses' business is untrue and unfair, not least since, encouraging polling for Indy notwithstanding, it is not a settled issue for Scots yet.
Say someone buys a flat for 200,000
A few years later he gets married and has a kid. The market has performed strongly and he can sell his house for 300,000
But he has to pay 40,000 in CGT so can only afford to buy a smaller house - so isn’t incentivised to move.
However if you maintain the relief for any principal property acquired in the next 12 months then it works (ie you end up paying capital gains only when you are downsizing and releasing permanent capital from the principal residence)
You do not care about the union. Simple. You only care about yourself, and your party’s reputation.
It wont work anyway. Even if a Starmer Government granted a referendum that passes, History books will likely write that it was Brexit and the Conservative government that contributed massively towards the event. Your party will be blamed anyway.
Simples
NEW THREAD
They seemed to regard it as self evident that the proles need to live in blank faced brick boxes without any attempt at adornment.
Perhaps window ledges lead to people becoming Tories? Bay windows result in Brexiters?
The tax base is also too narrow, with a huge amount also owned by tax exempt entities (colleges, churches, crown etc)
https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1279566374336167937
It is also very economically inefficient, since it impairs the property value of council housing itself, but also neighbouring private housing.
After nearly forty years of “experiment”, as far as I am concerned the jury is in: a healthy property market needs public sector development in the mix.
However, as I've repeatedly, and probably boringly said here, I agree with your second paragraph. Clegg handled the situation badly, certainly in retrospect. Whatever possessed him to take the non-job of DPM?
If he'd insisted on Home Sec we could well have been spared a lot, if not all, of the Windrush angst. And a lot of decent people could have had happier lives.
Heck, LDs have even failed at being a single-issue pro-European party, in part because Europhilia, in its purist form - and LDs are purists, aren't they? - is a minority tendency across the UK, and almost certainly always will be.
At least in Scotland and in Wales- as in old Ireland before - nationalist parties have much more potential for actually achieving their goals. Such as Irish Home Rule (ironically, not for one united but for two separate Irelands), the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Contrasted with such LD accomplishments as new stoplights and better sheep crossings here and there in a few lucky constituencies?
Is THAT the great LD dream? OR is it to cut a deal whenever it's (rarely) possible with the REAL political parties - the ones that will actually have a chance to run the government - to keep a handful of bad things from happening, or to give a handful of lucky parliamentarians the chance to be bit players in governments they cannot dominate, and for whose shortcoming they will inevitably be blamed?