I am left-wing and I don't believe the State should control most of the economy. Indeed I generally think the ability of any government, of any stripe, to direct the economy is vastly over stated. I don't hold authoritarian social values either.
If you do not believe the state should control most of the economy then you are by definition not leftwing, you might be centrist but you are not leftwing.
You sound far more of a centrist liberal than leftwing
I think the labels confuse more than they help. Personally I'm in favour of much higher income tax on higher tax bands plus a wealth tax plus high spending on health, social care and education and a minimal military budget and no royal family. But I'm not in favour of government control of most of industry and I'm thoroughly relaxed about social issues, if people pay their taxes I don't care about their luxuries, and I don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives. On youtr definition I'm a centrist, but that doesn't feel very centrist to me? Is it a useful label?
The fact you want very high taxes and high government spending means by definition the state will take more of peoples' income and control more of the economy so you are still mildly left-wing even if you may not want state control of most of industry
Ted Cruz suffered yet another electoral setback, though not as severe as his political near-death experience running against Beto O'Rourke in 2018.
In Tuesday's Republican runoff primary, Cruz's protege lost the nomination for US House in a Rio Grande Valley district to the candidate endoresed by Trumpsky.
I think I might have gone native. Most Russians (apart from Corbyn's handlers at Moscow Central) would not have heard of the name and would not know not to decline it.
A lovely unbiased thread on Boris by Cyclefree. Not unsurprising , but at least we know where Cyclefree is coming from, if of course there was any doubt. I don't like Boris myself, but we are less than a year(in fact only 7 months into his Premiership). I think he needs time, after all he has still not recovered from Covid19. One can Imagine Cyclefree lauding Blair in a thread such as this in Dec 1997.. 7 months into his Premiership, only to find out later he was absolutely appalling as PM(given that he was effective, if appalling).
I have set out the facts leading to my conclusion. If you have other facts to put forward, feel free.
Boris has been PM for a year. Regardless of the size of his majority, there are continuities in the way that he behaves and in his contempt for Parliament and democratic norms, even if it upsets his fans on here that these are pointed out.
I always thought Blair was a narcissistic weasel, though an effective operator.
but the point I am making was that Blair proved to be terrible, but i doubt for a second you would have written such a thread about Blair 7 months into his leadership. You would have most likely been swept up in the love in like so many others were.
Boris has only been PM unfettered for 7 months or so, for the greater part he has been ill. I don't like Boris, but its far too early to make a call on his Premiership. I think you are far too judgemental at such an early stage. You may end up totally correct, but its too early to start frothing about how much you will enjoy his demise.. in fact its very unhealthy, the sort of thing the hard left regularly speak about including wishing him dead (cf Miriam Margoyles)
Good grief! Compare for a moment the relative calm and prosperity of Blair's years as PM with the shambolic disaster and decline of the past 5 years of unfettered Conservative rule (I struggle to call it 'government').
Blair would be a 100 times better leading the country in this current crisis than the buffoon who is currently in No 10.
What calm and prosperity under Blair?
Blair's government was overspending from 2002 onwards leading to the biggest structural deficit this country had ever faced postwar which it took a decade of austerity to fix.
The decade of austerity only prolonged the effects of the global financial crisis.
As we now see, there was always another way.
Except the austerity only began three years after the financial crisis began. If in three years time nothing is being done to tackle the deficit then you'd have a point about another way.
I am left-wing and I don't believe the State should control most of the economy. Indeed I generally think the ability of any government, of any stripe, to direct the economy is vastly over stated. I don't hold authoritarian social values either.
If you do not believe the state should control most of the economy then you are by definition not leftwing, you might be centrist but you are not leftwing.
You sound far more of a centrist liberal than leftwing
I think the labels confuse more than they help. Personally I'm in favour of much higher income tax on higher tax bands plus a wealth tax plus high spending on health, social care and education and a minimal military budget and no royal family. But I'm not in favour of government control of most of industry and I'm thoroughly relaxed about social issues, if people pay their taxes I don't care about their luxuries, and I don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives. On youtr definition I'm a centrist, but that doesn't feel very centrist to me? Is it a useful label?
The fact you want very high taxes and high government spending means by definition the state will take more of peoples' income and control more of the economy so you are still mildly left-wing even if you may not want state control of most of industry
But I thought that the Laffer curve meant that higher taxes on the wealthy would mean lower tax take? So rightwingers should be in favour of higher tax rates, right?
Maybe the difference between left and right is rightwingers think that the rich mostly deserve their wealth, and the poor mostly deserve their poverty, whereas leftwingers don't.
Dad just back from the pub. It was absolutely dead; only a couple of people in there.
London Anecdata:
went on the Tube today. Busiest I have seen it since early lockdown. However it was only like a quiet Sunday, so progress is slow. But better than nothing.
An observation: mask usage is now about 95%. It is near universal, and failure to wear a mask gets frowns and scoldings. Also: the people most willing to go without a mask are attractive young women.
True story.
My guess is that this is Darwinian. Attractive young women don't want to give up their mating advantages - look at me, I'm pretty - so they are still determined to look cute and earn admirers.
Although amber heard has proved over the last few days that you can look cute with a bandana over your mouth
Am I alone in finding the inevitable election of doddery Joe Biden quite infinitely depressing? And only outweighed by the even-worse alternative?
What a time for the USA, the leader of the Free World, to come up with this terrible choice of feckwits.
The West needs a vigorous, liberal leader. A hero. Someone willing to stand up to China and Russia, Instead, we have two old men who can barely speak coherently, who are differentiated only by one being, amazingly, even worse than the other.
Unfortunately Nick Clegg is barred due to not being a US citizen.
The whole "Biden is a vegtable" is crap. Check out the man's record over his entire political career - and not just the gaffes, but the achievements.
Also note that, if elected, Biden will be the new President BEST qualified to actually work with Congress and get things done.
Carter, Bush 1, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump: none had a full term as US Senator or equivalent in US House, and two ever served in Congress at all. A HUGE handicap which Uncle Joe will not have. PLUS he's done more good for the US in one month in his time, than Trumpsky would even consider attempting in 100 terms.
Tired of having PBers kick my dog around!
You are assuming that being a Senator teaches you the skills to be a President.
I would argue that Reagan and then Clinton were the best qualified (Governors with CA being more complicated than AR) - executive experience is what matters.
Then I would say HW due to his experience in international affairs and time as VP.
Scotland also cannot declare independence without the permission of the UK. The position is the same.
Yes it can. How would rUK stop it? They won't just declare UDI. There will be an election. Then a referendum. Then a result. If the Scottish government is elected on a platform of Indyref2 and then Indyref2 votes for Independence what specifically can rUK do to stop it?
There are two Acts of Union - English and Scottish. The Scottish one was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It absolutely can be dissolved in the Scottish Parliament. Are you suggesting the British Army should be deployed to arrest the SNP leadership to prevent that from happening?
Philosophically that’s an interesting question (I don’t have a view one way or the other).
AIUI the Scottish Parliament decided to dissolve itself and merge with the Westminster Parliament with Scotland sending representatives to sit in the U.K. Parliament
Some years later, the U.K. parliament votes to create a devolved Parliament at Holyrood which has certain prescribed powers with other powers reserved to Westminster.
It does not follow that Holyrood is a recreation of the original Scottish Parliament, but it’s instead a devolved body from Westminster. Hence I don’t think that it can “just dissolve the Union”.
That’s not to saw that Scotland can’t go down UDI route if it wants to, but I don’t think it can claim to be acting within the law if it does
The very first business in 1997 was to declare the Holyrood Parliament the continuation of that suspended in 1707. As Winnie Ewing formally declared, ‘The Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on March 25 1707, is hereby reconvened.’
But was that authorised by statute or not?
Scots constitutional law is founded on the principal of popular sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept.
At the time the parliaments merged that became vested in Westminster
I suspect BUPA, AVIVA, etc are trousering the cash here too. There has been effectively no private medicine in Q2 this year.
Most other insurance companies too probably. I can imagine that car insurance companies have made a fortune this year since nobody is driving anywhere.
Indeed. We got an unsolicited rebate from our car insurers some friends have too. Nice of them to do that but I suspect if they rebate each policyholder £50 they have been saving a lot more than that.
You've been had, we got 75 quid.
Rather depends on how much you paid in the first place I guess?
I paid 200 last year and 185 at renewal. No refunds.
LV are asking for a 15% increase this year.
It really pisses me off. Every year they do this and I have to spend a few hours getting other quotes which they then match. It’s so pointless.
A lovely unbiased thread on Boris by Cyclefree. Not unsurprising , but at least we know where Cyclefree is coming from, if of course there was any doubt. I don't like Boris myself, but we are less than a year(in fact only 7 months into his Premiership). I think he needs time, after all he has still not recovered from Covid19. One can Imagine Cyclefree lauding Blair in a thread such as this in Dec 1997.. 7 months into his Premiership, only to find out later he was absolutely appalling as PM(given that he was effective, if appalling).
I have set out the facts leading to my conclusion. If you have other facts to put forward, feel free.
Boris has been PM for a year. Regardless of the size of his majority, there are continuities in the way that he behaves and in his contempt for Parliament and democratic norms, even if it upsets his fans on here that these are pointed out.
I always thought Blair was a narcissistic weasel, though an effective operator.
but the point I am making was that Blair proved to be terrible, but i doubt for a second you would have written such a thread about Blair 7 months into his leadership. You would have most likely been swept up in the love in like so many others were.
Boris has only been PM unfettered for 7 months or so, for the greater part he has been ill. I don't like Boris, but its far too early to make a call on his Premiership. I think you are far too judgemental at such an early stage. You may end up totally correct, but its too early to start frothing about how much you will enjoy his demise.. in fact its very unhealthy, the sort of thing the hard left regularly speak about including wishing him dead (cf Miriam Margoyles)
On what basis was Blair terrible? It was a period where the country was happier, more together and noticeable achievements in developing sustained peace in NI and big improvements in healthcare and education. People have short memories.
He buggered the constitution. He gave Campbell free rein and in so doing materially coarsen public dialogue. He set us on the path to the politicians we have today
Sorry catching up on the threads after watching cooking shows on cable and drinking lovely oaked Chilean Chardonnay.
There appears to be an accusation from Professor Carl Heneghan (Oxon) that anyone who has ever had COVID then subsequently died is counted as a COVID death, regardless of whether or not COVID was responsible for their death.
Is this actually the case?
I don’t know about the specifics
But I was friends with Carl at Uni and he is a sensible and thoughtful guy
I am left-wing and I don't believe the State should control most of the economy. Indeed I generally think the ability of any government, of any stripe, to direct the economy is vastly over stated. I don't hold authoritarian social values either.
If you do not believe the state should control most of the economy then you are by definition not leftwing, you might be centrist but you are not leftwing.
You sound far more of a centrist liberal than leftwing
I think the labels confuse more than they help. Personally I'm in favour of much higher income tax on higher tax bands plus a wealth tax plus high spending on health, social care and education and a minimal military budget and no royal family. But I'm not in favour of government control of most of industry and I'm thoroughly relaxed about social issues, if people pay their taxes I don't care about their luxuries, and I don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives. On youtr definition I'm a centrist, but that doesn't feel very centrist to me? Is it a useful label?
You’re not a centrist, your just Danish!
Edit: apart from the royal family bit. They’re the ones that made that nice Australian girl queen right?
I am left-wing and I don't believe the State should control most of the economy. Indeed I generally think the ability of any government, of any stripe, to direct the economy is vastly over stated. I don't hold authoritarian social values either.
If you do not believe the state should control most of the economy then you are by definition not leftwing, you might be centrist but you are not leftwing.
You sound far more of a centrist liberal than leftwing
I think the labels confuse more than they help. Personally I'm in favour of much higher income tax on higher tax bands plus a wealth tax plus high spending on health, social care and education and a minimal military budget and no royal family. But I'm not in favour of government control of most of industry and I'm thoroughly relaxed about social issues, if people pay their taxes I don't care about their luxuries, and I don't want to tell anyone how to live their lives. On youtr definition I'm a centrist, but that doesn't feel very centrist to me? Is it a useful label?
Generating lots of money by significantly raising higher tax bands doesn't work though - except as a feelgood measure.
The last estimate I saw was that a 1p increase in the additional rate (45% - 46% for incomes over £150k) was that would bring in £105m per year. Which - even in you whacked 5p or 10p on the rate - is peanuts. https://www.ft.com/content/7a01b73b-d1ec-4b6e-a7b1-2d1a0060de91
We need a worked through set of proposals, including pensions as National Insurance is a supplemntary income tax, including the employer elements.
There is also that even by European standards our tax rates are not *that* low.
Comments
In Tuesday's Republican runoff primary, Cruz's protege lost the nomination for US House in a Rio Grande Valley district to the candidate endoresed by Trumpsky.
Yet again the Bearded One bites the Big Weenie.
https://sklonenie-slov.ru/dzheremi.html
Maybe the difference between left and right is rightwingers think that the rich mostly deserve their wealth, and the poor mostly deserve their poverty, whereas leftwingers don't.
I would argue that Reagan and then Clinton were the best qualified (Governors with CA being more complicated than AR) - executive experience is what matters.
Then I would say HW due to his experience in international affairs and time as VP.
Biden is a mediocre #4
It really pisses me off. Every year they do this and I have to spend a few hours getting other quotes which they then match. It’s so pointless.
He voted with the opposition and screwed his party for his own benefit. That sounds like the actions of a shit.
Edit: plus I’m an investment banker. I know a duplicitous little shift when I see one
But I was friends with Carl at Uni and he is a sensible and thoughtful guy
Edit: apart from the royal family bit. They’re the ones that made that nice Australian girl queen right?
crashed in a field
The last estimate I saw was that a 1p increase in the additional rate (45% - 46% for incomes over £150k) was that would bring in £105m per year. Which - even in you whacked 5p or 10p on the rate - is peanuts.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a01b73b-d1ec-4b6e-a7b1-2d1a0060de91
We need a worked through set of proposals, including pensions as National Insurance is a supplemntary income tax, including the employer elements.
There is also that even by European standards our tax rates are not *that* low.