Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Why isn't Fox News showing different results, then?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
There is a considerable scatter. But this is interesting -
Look at the clustering in recent days that hasn't fed into the trend, yet.
That clustering won't feed into the trend, because all those polls were from the same pollster - USC Dornsife - and only the latest one will count for the purpose of the poll of polls.
Weren't we told Austerity was dead and wouldn't be coming back?
This tired old "cut my taxes and slash services" response is almost a knee-jerk reaction to any economic change.
If things are going well, cut taxes (we can afford to) - if things are going badly, cut taxes and public spending (it's time those overpaid public sector bureaucrats felt a bit of pain too).
On topic. It's important to remember that the key claim of the Corbynistas is sabotage rather than insubordination. It's not enough to show that in an utterly dysfunctional party there were different groups of people using the rules to sign off different things because they believed the other lot were useless, but rather they need to prove it was done with malice rather than to save seats. Their case is hugely weakened by the complete mess they made of things when they were in total control.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Weren't we told Austerity was dead and wouldn't be coming back?
This tired old "cut my taxes and slash services" response is almost a knee-jerk reaction to any economic change.
If things are going well, cut taxes (we can afford to) - if things are going badly, cut taxes and public spending (it's time those overpaid public sector bureaucrats felt a bit of pain too).
Having to pay a bit more capital gains tax is hardly austerity.
FYI people were having a bit of a freak out about Telegraph article about pedophile secret code. Calling it QAnon crap. But the things is it is more twisted and deeper than that.
The pedophiles on 4chan do indeed use "pizza" as a code word for child pornography. Then, when the Podesta emails were released some wag on 4chan, exposed to the pizza terminology, decided that every Podesta email that referenced pizza actually went child porn.
That's how Pizzagate was born. Pizzagate is, of course, part of QAnon cannon.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Would have been too obvious. Putin too clever for that. Runs his agent with subtlety and skill. ☺
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
Okay - the approval numbers are on Page 279. White voters approve of Trump 51-48 (+3). Black voters split 22-73 (-51), Hispanic voters split 33-62 (-29).
In terms of voting intention, Whites vote 48-44 for Trump, Black voters are 78-12 for Biden, Hispanic voters 57-27 for Biden.
The Zogby numbers for White and Hispanic voters are close but that doesn't mean those who "approve" of Trump are minded to vote for him.
To conclude from these approval numbers that Trump is "home and dry" is absurd.
I thought Zogby went out of business after it called Obama/Romney wrong?
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
On topic. It's important to remember that the key claim of the Corbynistas is sabotage rather than insubordination. It's not enough to show that in an utterly dysfunctional party there were different groups of people using the rules to sign off different things because they believed the other lot were useless, but rather they need to prove it was done with malice rather than to save seats. Their case is hugely weakened by the complete mess they made of things when they were in total control.
There is a very long history in revolutionary ideologyhorseshit of declaring that "sabotage" is the only reason that The True Way has failed.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Putin’s agenda is sowing discord within the US and mistrust between the US and its european allies. So far his backing Trump is paying off handsomely.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
The data subsequent to the decision suggests that they have messed up badly.
This was the one that Boris f**ked up right at the beginning, with that rambling incoherent television address so memorably lampooned by Matt Lucas, which included announcing the supposedly clear new five-stage national alert system, and then saying we were currently at level three-and-a-half.
It never got off the runway.
The new system is: watch what Scotland is doing; wait a week during which ministers can build the suspense by denying or trashing the Scottish approach; do the same.
Yes, Johnson copies Sturgeons homework then hands it in late.
The SNP would not be anywhere near as popular without the Tories as a foil. It has been the cover for a lot of other failures.
It is Johnson's malevolent incompetence, as outlined in the header, that will end the United Kingdom.
The end of Transition is set to be a trainwreck too. What else can we expect?
Yesterday’s Briefing Room on R4 is well worth a listen. It included the suggestion that a thin last minute deal might be accompanied by an “implementation period” - during which everything would stay the same as currently. As a way to extend without actually extending.
He’ll be out of the door as quickly as Theresa May was, if he tries that one.
But who would they replace him with?
Rishi (= Disraeli)?????? Traditionally the Tories love a winner. And that goes above anything else.
Looks like Rishi plans to copy Corbyns 2019 manifesto on tax. The cycle of copying Labours manifesto is accelerating.
If they ramp up IHT or lower the thresholds then I'll be surprised - in a good way. But I doubt that they will. Going after estates enrages both stickbangers and their heirs in a way almost nothing else will, and is political nuclear death (as Theresa May discovered with the dementia tax.)
The Government won't want to go after income tax, NI and VAT - too controversial, too obvious - with the caveat that they might scrap the preferential NI rate currently enjoyed by the self-employed, which is something that Sunak has hinted at in the past. They daren't touch the stickbangers, of course, so we are stuck with the wretched triple lock for the foreseeable. Hiking corporation tax at the same time as trying to get us through Brexit might be considered brave, in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Thus, the most obvious targets are tax reliefs enjoyed by the working age population. The prime candidate is a big Brown-style raid on pensions, this time normalising reliefs at the basic rate for all contributions. The FT was suggesting earlier in the year that CGT might be rounded up to a flat rate of 28% for all assets, and my husband was also speculating just yesterday that the annual contribution limit for ISAs might be cut in half.
Of course, the most radical measure would be to go all out with a wealth tax and pocket a one-off levy on all assets - savings, pensions, shares, property, the lot - which could potentially recoup the cost of all the extra borrowing taken out during the Plague. But I think it really would take a Corbyn Government to dare to try something like that!
The Sunday Times is reporting this differently - with all pensions relief given at 30% thus higher than the basic rate but lower than the higher rate thus avoiding the obvious headlines of either.
I think something like that is likely.
Some interesting ideas.
But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the £25bn+ spent on the main residence relief CGT loophole.
That is worth more than all the rest put together.
Careful Matt, I brought this up a few weeks ago and got absolutely minced.
CGT on primary residence would end Sunak's chances of being elected Tory leader within about five seconds.
Also replying to @contrarian who basically posted the same.
You are probably right.
Can anyone remember the impact of removing Mortgage Tax Relief which I would have thought even more dramatic.
Lawson salami sliced it and at a time of rapidly rising house prices (which the government was seeking to cool) it had minimal impact.
He preannounced it which accelerated the boom and then caused a subsequent bust.
That makes no sense. Its not as if MIRAS was locked in for those who bought before a particular date. It was removed for everyone from a date. Pre-announcing it meant people could work out what their mortgage would be when it was gone and whether they could afford the house. This caused a modest dampening to the market not a boom or a subsequent bust.
According to Wikipedia when the multiple mortgage tax relief withdrawal was announced it caused a sharp increase in house prices to beat the deadline. Lawson subsequently stated he regretted not making it effective from budget day.
It caused a significant increase in house prices over those few months, at the same time as the economy was going into decline. House prices in the south east and especially Greater London were already somewhat overpriced. The combination of these three things lead to a house price crash that spread mich further than the SE. The housing problem persisted some years and the words negative equity became a common.
There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
The data subsequent to the decision suggests that they have messed up badly.
How can that decision be messed up if it is based on a threshold? They can't know whether things will get worse or better in a country, the decision has to be made based on the numbers available at the time.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Putin’s agenda is sowing discord within the US and mistrust between the US and its european allies. So far his backing Trump is paying off handsomely.
But oil price = power for Putin. It's his number 1 thing. I can't see any way that he could let that slide.
The national poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. The national party identification turnout model is: Democrats = 37 percent; Republicans = 35 percent; and Independents = 28 percent.
Gallup latest poll has party identification Dem: 31 GoP: 26 Ind: 41
The truth is probably somewhere between the two. The Economist/YouGov split is 37.5% Dem, 35.4% Ind and 27.1% Rep.
In that poll Independents were 43-39 for Biden.
It's intriguing - all the pollsters seem to be oversampling independents.
My gut is that when we are able to analyse the split in turnout, we'll see Registered Republicans at 33-34%, well up on their 28% of the electorate. Simply, those Republicans that remain *are* enthused by Trump, and it would be very naive not to admit that.
Democrats, on the other hand, will end up probably slight underperforming their number of Registered voters, and the Independent gap will be even bigger. So, something like 38 D, 34 R, 27 I sounds like a perfectly plausible split.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Putin’s agenda is sowing discord within the US and mistrust between the US and its european allies. So far his backing Trump is paying off handsomely.
But oil price = power for Putin. It's his number 1 thing. I can't see any way that he could let that slide.
In which case, he should want a really prosperous Europe (and everywhere else in the world) sucking in oil and gas exports.
This was the one that Boris f**ked up right at the beginning, with that rambling incoherent television address so memorably lampooned by Matt Lucas, which included announcing the supposedly clear new five-stage national alert system, and then saying we were currently at level three-and-a-half.
It never got off the runway.
The new system is: watch what Scotland is doing; wait a week during which ministers can build the suspense by denying or trashing the Scottish approach; do the same.
Yes, Johnson copies Sturgeons homework then hands it in late.
The SNP would not be anywhere near as popular without the Tories as a foil. It has been the cover for a lot of other failures.
It is Johnson's malevolent incompetence, as outlined in the header, that will end the United Kingdom.
The end of Transition is set to be a trainwreck too. What else can we expect?
Yesterday’s Briefing Room on R4 is well worth a listen. It included the suggestion that a thin last minute deal might be accompanied by an “implementation period” - during which everything would stay the same as currently. As a way to extend without actually extending.
He’ll be out of the door as quickly as Theresa May was, if he tries that one.
But who would they replace him with?
Rishi (= Disraeli)?????? Traditionally the Tories love a winner. And that goes above anything else.
Looks like Rishi plans to copy Corbyns 2019 manifesto on tax. The cycle of copying Labours manifesto is accelerating.
If they ramp up IHT or lower the thresholds then I'll be surprised - in a good way. But I doubt that they will. Going after estates enrages both stickbangers and their heirs in a way almost nothing else will, and is political nuclear death (as Theresa May discovered with the dementia tax.)
The Government won't want to go after income tax, NI and VAT - too controversial, too obvious - with the caveat that they might scrap the preferential NI rate currently enjoyed by the self-employed, which is something that Sunak has hinted at in the past. They daren't touch the stickbangers, of course, so we are stuck with the wretched triple lock for the foreseeable. Hiking corporation tax at the same time as trying to get us through Brexit might be considered brave, in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Thus, the most obvious targets are tax reliefs enjoyed by the working age population. The prime candidate is a big Brown-style raid on pensions, this time normalising reliefs at the basic rate for all contributions. The FT was suggesting earlier in the year that CGT might be rounded up to a flat rate of 28% for all assets, and my husband was also speculating just yesterday that the annual contribution limit for ISAs might be cut in half.
Of course, the most radical measure would be to go all out with a wealth tax and pocket a one-off levy on all assets - savings, pensions, shares, property, the lot - which could potentially recoup the cost of all the extra borrowing taken out during the Plague. But I think it really would take a Corbyn Government to dare to try something like that!
The Sunday Times is reporting this differently - with all pensions relief given at 30% thus higher than the basic rate but lower than the higher rate thus avoiding the obvious headlines of either.
I think something like that is likely.
Some interesting ideas.
But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the £25bn+ spent on the main residence relief CGT loophole.
That is worth more than all the rest put together.
Careful Matt, I brought this up a few weeks ago and got absolutely minced.
CGT on primary residence would end Sunak's chances of being elected Tory leader within about five seconds.
Also replying to @contrarian who basically posted the same.
You are probably right.
Can anyone remember the impact of removing Mortgage Tax Relief which I would have thought even more dramatic.
Lawson salami sliced it and at a time of rapidly rising house prices (which the government was seeking to cool) it had minimal impact.
He preannounced it which accelerated the boom and then caused a subsequent bust.
That makes no sense. Its not as if MIRAS was locked in for those who bought before a particular date. It was removed for everyone from a date. Pre-announcing it meant people could work out what their mortgage would be when it was gone and whether they could afford the house. This caused a modest dampening to the market not a boom or a subsequent bust.
According to Wikipedia when the multiple mortgage tax relief withdrawal was announced it caused a sharp increase in house prices to beat the deadline. Lawson subsequently stated he regretted not making it effective from budget day.
It caused a significant increase in house prices over those few months, at the same time as the economy was going into decline. House prices in the south east and especially Greater London were already somewhat overpriced. The combination of these three things lead to a house price crash that spread mich further than the SE. The housing problem persisted some years and the words negative equity became a common.
There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
7 day moving average, AIUI - which is why they don't knee jerk to one bad day's data. (Unlike some.....)
This was the one that Boris f**ked up right at the beginning, with that rambling incoherent television address so memorably lampooned by Matt Lucas, which included announcing the supposedly clear new five-stage national alert system, and then saying we were currently at level three-and-a-half.
It never got off the runway.
The new system is: watch what Scotland is doing; wait a week during which ministers can build the suspense by denying or trashing the Scottish approach; do the same.
Yes, Johnson copies Sturgeons homework then hands it in late.
The SNP would not be anywhere near as popular without the Tories as a foil. It has been the cover for a lot of other failures.
It is Johnson's malevolent incompetence, as outlined in the header, that will end the United Kingdom.
The end of Transition is set to be a trainwreck too. What else can we expect?
Yesterday’s Briefing Room on R4 is well worth a listen. It included the suggestion that a thin last minute deal might be accompanied by an “implementation period” - during which everything would stay the same as currently. As a way to extend without actually extending.
He’ll be out of the door as quickly as Theresa May was, if he tries that one.
But who would they replace him with?
Rishi (= Disraeli)?????? Traditionally the Tories love a winner. And that goes above anything else.
Looks like Rishi plans to copy Corbyns 2019 manifesto on tax. The cycle of copying Labours manifesto is accelerating.
If they ramp up IHT or lower the thresholds then I'll be surprised - in a good way. But I doubt that they will. Going after estates enrages both stickbangers and their heirs in a way almost nothing else will, and is political nuclear death (as Theresa May discovered with the dementia tax.)
The Government won't want to go after income tax, NI and VAT - too controversial, too obvious - with the caveat that they might scrap the preferential NI rate currently enjoyed by the self-employed, which is something that Sunak has hinted at in the past. They daren't touch the stickbangers, of course, so we are stuck with the wretched triple lock for the foreseeable. Hiking corporation tax at the same time as trying to get us through Brexit might be considered brave, in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Thus, the most obvious targets are tax reliefs enjoyed by the working age population. The prime candidate is a big Brown-style raid on pensions, this time normalising reliefs at the basic rate for all contributions. The FT was suggesting earlier in the year that CGT might be rounded up to a flat rate of 28% for all assets, and my husband was also speculating just yesterday that the annual contribution limit for ISAs might be cut in half.
Of course, the most radical measure would be to go all out with a wealth tax and pocket a one-off levy on all assets - savings, pensions, shares, property, the lot - which could potentially recoup the cost of all the extra borrowing taken out during the Plague. But I think it really would take a Corbyn Government to dare to try something like that!
The Sunday Times is reporting this differently - with all pensions relief given at 30% thus higher than the basic rate but lower than the higher rate thus avoiding the obvious headlines of either.
I think something like that is likely.
Some interesting ideas.
But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the £25bn+ spent on the main residence relief CGT loophole.
That is worth more than all the rest put together.
Careful Matt, I brought this up a few weeks ago and got absolutely minced.
CGT on primary residence would end Sunak's chances of being elected Tory leader within about five seconds.
Also replying to @contrarian who basically posted the same.
You are probably right.
Can anyone remember the impact of removing Mortgage Tax Relief which I would have thought even more dramatic.
Lawson salami sliced it and at a time of rapidly rising house prices (which the government was seeking to cool) it had minimal impact.
He preannounced it which accelerated the boom and then caused a subsequent bust.
That makes no sense. Its not as if MIRAS was locked in for those who bought before a particular date. It was removed for everyone from a date. Pre-announcing it meant people could work out what their mortgage would be when it was gone and whether they could afford the house. This caused a modest dampening to the market not a boom or a subsequent bust.
According to Wikipedia when the multiple mortgage tax relief withdrawal was announced it caused a sharp increase in house prices to beat the deadline. Lawson subsequently stated he regretted not making it effective from budget day.
It caused a significant increase in house prices over those few months, at the same time as the economy was going into decline. House prices in the south east and especially Greater London were already somewhat overpriced. The combination of these three things lead to a house price crash that spread mich further than the SE. The housing problem persisted some years and the words negative equity became a common.
There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
Did you mean to say that @DavidL was mistaken because that's exactly what I said? Lawson announced that the window to qualify for dual MIRAS was going to close which caused the boom to accelerate followed by a crash (which mainly affected the SE) because demand collapsed.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
Rupert Allason was the only one who abstained when it was a confidence vote (and he was overseas) and he had the whip removed for a year as a result. No other MPs rebelled in that vote and none at all voted with the opposition.
The 20 or so who voted with the opposition when Boris repeated Major's trick were more extreme than even the likes of Bill Cash etc who with Maastricht refused to rebel at that point.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
So you give the government a free pass on bollocks policy because the context is one of a global pandemic?
No wonder the Cons are on 40%. And how are your knees?
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
Quite amazed that this post has been flagged as spam!
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
This was the one that Boris f**ked up right at the beginning, with that rambling incoherent television address so memorably lampooned by Matt Lucas, which included announcing the supposedly clear new five-stage national alert system, and then saying we were currently at level three-and-a-half.
It never got off the runway.
The new system is: watch what Scotland is doing; wait a week during which ministers can build the suspense by denying or trashing the Scottish approach; do the same.
Yes, Johnson copies Sturgeons homework then hands it in late.
The SNP would not be anywhere near as popular without the Tories as a foil. It has been the cover for a lot of other failures.
It is Johnson's malevolent incompetence, as outlined in the header, that will end the United Kingdom.
The end of Transition is set to be a trainwreck too. What else can we expect?
Yesterday’s Briefing Room on R4 is well worth a listen. It included the suggestion that a thin last minute deal might be accompanied by an “implementation period” - during which everything would stay the same as currently. As a way to extend without actually extending.
He’ll be out of the door as quickly as Theresa May was, if he tries that one.
But who would they replace him with?
Rishi (= Disraeli)?????? Traditionally the Tories love a winner. And that goes above anything else.
Looks like Rishi plans to copy Corbyns 2019 manifesto on tax. The cycle of copying Labours manifesto is accelerating.
If they ramp up IHT or lower the thresholds then I'll be surprised - in a good way. But I doubt that they will. Going after estates enrages both stickbangers and their heirs in a way almost nothing else will, and is political nuclear death (as Theresa May discovered with the dementia tax.)
The Government won't want to go after income tax, NI and VAT - too controversial, too obvious - with the caveat that they might scrap the preferential NI rate currently enjoyed by the self-employed, which is something that Sunak has hinted at in the past. They daren't touch the stickbangers, of course, so we are stuck with the wretched triple lock for the foreseeable. Hiking corporation tax at the same time as trying to get us through Brexit might be considered brave, in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Thus, the most obvious targets are tax reliefs enjoyed by the working age population. The prime candidate is a big Brown-style raid on pensions, this time normalising reliefs at the basic rate for all contributions. The FT was suggesting earlier in the year that CGT might be rounded up to a flat rate of 28% for all assets, and my husband was also speculating just yesterday that the annual contribution limit for ISAs might be cut in half.
Of course, the most radical measure would be to go all out with a wealth tax and pocket a one-off levy on all assets - savings, pensions, shares, property, the lot - which could potentially recoup the cost of all the extra borrowing taken out during the Plague. But I think it really would take a Corbyn Government to dare to try something like that!
The Sunday Times is reporting this differently - with all pensions relief given at 30% thus higher than the basic rate but lower than the higher rate thus avoiding the obvious headlines of either.
I think something like that is likely.
Some interesting ideas.
But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the £25bn+ spent on the main residence relief CGT loophole.
That is worth more than all the rest put together.
Careful Matt, I brought this up a few weeks ago and got absolutely minced.
CGT on primary residence would end Sunak's chances of being elected Tory leader within about five seconds.
Also replying to @contrarian who basically posted the same.
You are probably right.
Can anyone remember the impact of removing Mortgage Tax Relief which I would have thought even more dramatic.
Lawson salami sliced it and at a time of rapidly rising house prices (which the government was seeking to cool) it had minimal impact.
He preannounced it which accelerated the boom and then caused a subsequent bust.
That makes no sense. Its not as if MIRAS was locked in for those who bought before a particular date. It was removed for everyone from a date. Pre-announcing it meant people could work out what their mortgage would be when it was gone and whether they could afford the house. This caused a modest dampening to the market not a boom or a subsequent bust.
According to Wikipedia when the multiple mortgage tax relief withdrawal was announced it caused a sharp increase in house prices to beat the deadline. Lawson subsequently stated he regretted not making it effective from budget day.
It caused a significant increase in house prices over those few months, at the same time as the economy was going into decline. House prices in the south east and especially Greater London were already somewhat overpriced. The combination of these three things lead to a house price crash that spread mich further than the SE. The housing problem persisted some years and the words negative equity became a common.
There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
Did you mean to say that @DavidL was mistaken because that's exactly what I said? Lawson announced that the window to qualify for dual MIRAS was going to close which caused the boom to accelerate followed by a crash (which mainly affected the SE) because demand collapsed.
Apologies. Let me correct: *someone* was mistaken.
It's all the fault of the nesting :-# . Difficult following indentation lines for several screens.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
So you give the government a free pass on bollocks policy because the context is one of a global pandemic?
No wonder the Cons are on 40%. And how are your knees?
What are you talking about?
Quarantining foreign travellers during a pandemic is far better than going back to lockdowns.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
So you give the government a free pass on bollocks policy because the context is one of a global pandemic?
No wonder the Cons are on 40%. And how are your knees?
What are you talking about?
Quarantining foreign travellers during a pandemic is far better than going back to lockdowns.
There is no consistency about the quarantines. It is all seat of the pants stuff. People are willing to put up, as we have seen, with all kinds of privations if they think there is a well thought out plan behind it.
This was the one that Boris f**ked up right at the beginning, with that rambling incoherent television address so memorably lampooned by Matt Lucas, which included announcing the supposedly clear new five-stage national alert system, and then saying we were currently at level three-and-a-half.
It never got off the runway.
The new system is: watch what Scotland is doing; wait a week during which ministers can build the suspense by denying or trashing the Scottish approach; do the same.
Yes, Johnson copies Sturgeons homework then hands it in late.
The SNP would not be anywhere near as popular without the Tories as a foil. It has been the cover for a lot of other failures.
It is Johnson's malevolent incompetence, as outlined in the header, that will end the United Kingdom.
The end of Transition is set to be a trainwreck too. What else can we expect?
Yesterday’s Briefing Room on R4 is well worth a listen. It included the suggestion that a thin last minute deal might be accompanied by an “implementation period” - during which everything would stay the same as currently. As a way to extend without actually extending.
He’ll be out of the door as quickly as Theresa May was, if he tries that one.
But who would they replace him with?
Rishi (= Disraeli)?????? Traditionally the Tories love a winner. And that goes above anything else.
Looks like Rishi plans to copy Corbyns 2019 manifesto on tax. The cycle of copying Labours manifesto is accelerating.
If they ramp up IHT or lower the thresholds then I'll be surprised - in a good way. But I doubt that they will. Going after estates enrages both stickbangers and their heirs in a way almost nothing else will, and is political nuclear death (as Theresa May discovered with the dementia tax.)
The Government won't want to go after income tax, NI and VAT - too controversial, too obvious - with the caveat that they might scrap the preferential NI rate currently enjoyed by the self-employed, which is something that Sunak has hinted at in the past. They daren't touch the stickbangers, of course, so we are stuck with the wretched triple lock for the foreseeable. Hiking corporation tax at the same time as trying to get us through Brexit might be considered brave, in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Thus, the most obvious targets are tax reliefs enjoyed by the working age population. The prime candidate is a big Brown-style raid on pensions, this time normalising reliefs at the basic rate for all contributions. The FT was suggesting earlier in the year that CGT might be rounded up to a flat rate of 28% for all assets, and my husband was also speculating just yesterday that the annual contribution limit for ISAs might be cut in half.
Of course, the most radical measure would be to go all out with a wealth tax and pocket a one-off levy on all assets - savings, pensions, shares, property, the lot - which could potentially recoup the cost of all the extra borrowing taken out during the Plague. But I think it really would take a Corbyn Government to dare to try something like that!
The Sunday Times is reporting this differently - with all pensions relief given at 30% thus higher than the basic rate but lower than the higher rate thus avoiding the obvious headlines of either.
I think something like that is likely.
Some interesting ideas.
But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the £25bn+ spent on the main residence relief CGT loophole.
That is worth more than all the rest put together.
Careful Matt, I brought this up a few weeks ago and got absolutely minced.
CGT on primary residence would end Sunak's chances of being elected Tory leader within about five seconds.
Also replying to @contrarian who basically posted the same.
You are probably right.
Can anyone remember the impact of removing Mortgage Tax Relief which I would have thought even more dramatic.
Lawson salami sliced it and at a time of rapidly rising house prices (which the government was seeking to cool) it had minimal impact.
He preannounced it which accelerated the boom and then caused a subsequent bust.
That makes no sense. Its not as if MIRAS was locked in for those who bought before a particular date. It was removed for everyone from a date. Pre-announcing it meant people could work out what their mortgage would be when it was gone and whether they could afford the house. This caused a modest dampening to the market not a boom or a subsequent bust.
According to Wikipedia when the multiple mortgage tax relief withdrawal was announced it caused a sharp increase in house prices to beat the deadline. Lawson subsequently stated he regretted not making it effective from budget day.
It caused a significant increase in house prices over those few months, at the same time as the economy was going into decline. House prices in the south east and especially Greater London were already somewhat overpriced. The combination of these three things lead to a house price crash that spread mich further than the SE. The housing problem persisted some years and the words negative equity became a common.
There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
One of the crazy things about MIRAS was that you got the tax rebate whether or not you paid tax. I bought a flat in Wimbledon with my brother, and got tax relief despite being a student at the time. My share mortgage was less than I had been paying in rent. I owned for 4 years, during which my share doubled in value. It was a deliberate housing bubble.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Thanks. I like podcasts and that sounds interesting.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
Absolutely.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
Quite amazed that this post has been flagged as spam!
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Some clear policies on the big issues of the day would be a start. They are in danger of believing that waiting for the Tories to implode is enough. People are wanting something solid to vote for. The fact that the Tories are still on 40% after all this debacle is a sign that something with political solidity and belief is required. The other necessity is proof of competence. Before Blair could win he had to have ideas, dynamism and a credible centrist party. Labour lost elections they could and should have won in 1992, 2010 and 2017. It can happen again.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
You are of course selectively quoting single day data. The figures are here https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide. Austria's figures were 382 as recently as yesterday. It is admittedly fairly steady at just over 20 cases per 100,000 (the cutoff) and has been for over a week, preceded by a rapid rise from about 10 the week before that, which is probably what gave rise to most concern. France has rapidly risen to over 80/100,000 and Spain to over 200. Portugal in contrast has risen from about 14 to about 19 in a week and its quarantin lifting is starting to look a little premature. Using the ECDC's preferrd 14-day infection figures, Portugal is on 33 and Austria 42.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Some clear policies on the big issues of the day would be a start. They are in danger of believing that waiting for the Tories to implode is enough. People are wanting something solid to vote for. The fact that the Tories are still on 40% after all this debacle is a sign that something with political solidity and belief is required. The other necessity is proof of competence. Before Blair could win he had to have ideas, dynamism and a credible centrist party. Labour lost elections they could and should have won in 1992, 2010 and 2017. It can happen again.
At this point in the election cycle, Blair was still a year and a half away from becoming leader.
With Covid, there won't even be local elections for another nine months. Given the current outstanding internal issues with Labour, and the fact that pretty much all governing apart from dealing with Covid has gone out of the window, he would be crazy to start trying to float ideas now.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Some clear policies on the big issues of the day would be a start. They are in danger of believing that waiting for the Tories to implode is enough. People are wanting something solid to vote for. The fact that the Tories are still on 40% after all this debacle is a sign that something with political solidity and belief is required. The other necessity is proof of competence. Before Blair could win he had to have ideas, dynamism and a credible centrist party. Labour lost elections they could and should have won in 1992, 2010 and 2017. It can happen again.
I think it’s probably best for Labour to stay a million miles away from (most of) the issues of the day until Brexit is done and dusted. Right now, the Conservative party (for good or ill) owns Brexit. Whatever the outcome, there’s no benefit to Labour that will accrue from sticking their oar in in any substantive fashion & the government is insisting on keeping everything secret to the point that it’s impossible to make any kind of constructive policy suggestions.
After Brexit is done, however it turns out, the voters that lent their votes to the Cons to "get Brexit done" will be up for grabs again. That’s the time to start looking like a government in waiting.
Right now, anything Labour does will either make them look ineffectual (because they’re not in government) or make it easier to make them look anti-Brexit & therefore anti-the group of voters that they might well need in the next GE. Why take the risk?
Frankly, whether Brexit is intrinsically "good" or "bad", the qualities displayed by the current government suggest they’re going to make a hash of it regardless. Why get in the way of your opponent when they’re insisting on making mistakes that you can’t rectify or prevent, even if it was in the national interest to do so?
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
I'll have a listen.
I noticed today a Labour members twitter, someone with quite a lot of followers, and he mentioned solidarity with the miners in his profile. I don't even know how to process that one.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Some clear policies on the big issues of the day would be a start. They are in danger of believing that waiting for the Tories to implode is enough. People are wanting something solid to vote for. The fact that the Tories are still on 40% after all this debacle is a sign that something with political solidity and belief is required. The other necessity is proof of competence. Before Blair could win he had to have ideas, dynamism and a credible centrist party. Labour lost elections they could and should have won in 1992, 2010 and 2017. It can happen again.
The rest of the Shadow Cabinet seem very lightweight and largely invisible. That does not help Starmer. Something needs doing there. What are they all doing?
Today’s new case data: Portugal +320, Austria +181
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Austria should have been quarantined or not. It obviously exceeded a threshold they used which caused it to be added to the list. No doubt there is a requirement of being x days below the threshold before it is removed. They haven't cocked up anything.
The data subsequent to the decision suggests that they have messed up badly.
Parliament returns this week with a growing number of Conservative MPs anxious that a summer strewn with screeching U-turns and howling errors is giving their government a reputation for blithering ineptitude that is draining away public support.
The shrewder people on the Conservative benches know that power without responsibility is a poisoned method of governing that will rebound on their party. A cabinet of blunderers is bad enough. A cabinet that refuses to take any responsibility for its mistakes invites an especially severe verdict from the public.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
When someone tells you the world is going to shit, it's fun to ask them what year they would like to be transported back to. Maybe they would have been happier before the end of rationing, or the elimination of smallpox, or the discovery of penicillin. Or maybe they would have liked 1919, or 1649, or maybe the fun and laughter of 1347 ? Presumably longer life, modern medicine, travel and education mean little besides the warm comfort of 'the good old days'.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
That would be tough for me to answer. The things they produce which I like. Favourable. Those I don't not. Which, I suspect would be true of most. Except it seems to be another bloody "culture war" touchstone.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
Some clear policies on the big issues of the day would be a start. They are in danger of believing that waiting for the Tories to implode is enough. People are wanting something solid to vote for. The fact that the Tories are still on 40% after all this debacle is a sign that something with political solidity and belief is required. The other necessity is proof of competence. Before Blair could win he had to have ideas, dynamism and a credible centrist party. Labour lost elections they could and should have won in 1992, 2010 and 2017. It can happen again.
I think it’s probably best for Labour to stay a million miles away from (most of) the issues of the day until Brexit is done and dusted. Right now, the Conservative party (for good or ill) owns Brexit. Whatever the outcome, there’s no benefit to Labour that will accrue from sticking their oar in in any substantive fashion & the government is insisting on keeping everything secret to the point that it’s impossible to make any kind of constructive policy suggestions.
After Brexit is done, however it turns out, the voters that lent their votes to the Cons to "get Brexit done" will be up for grabs again. That’s the time to start looking like a government in waiting.
Right now, anything Labour does will either make them look ineffectual (because they’re not in government) or make it easier to make them look anti-Brexit & therefore anti-the group of voters that they might well need in the next GE. Why take the risk?
Frankly, whether Brexit is intrinsically "good" or "bad", the qualities displayed by the current government suggest they’re going to make a hash of it regardless. Why get in the way of your opponent when they’re insisting on making mistakes that you can’t rectify or prevent, even if it was in the national interest to do so?
Largely agree but:-
1. They need to try and scrutinise. It may be hard but necessary especially with regard to all the changes the govt is making to the machinery of government. These may not be of interest to the public but they still matter and they must not go through by default and without scrutiny.
2. What they do say publicly must be very much as if they are speaking for the public, saying what the public is thinking and saying. There is already a smell of “one law for us, one for them” etc so this could be a useful meme to use. But Starmer needs to talk less like a lawyer in a courtroom - the public don’t care about forensic analyses of letters etc - and with more passion and well-controlled, well-directed common-sense-like fury at the government’s failings and the effect this is having on real people. He needs to drive a wedge between the Tories and their somewhat hubristic claim to represent the People.
And in the background he (Starmer) needs to do the hard work of working out what sort of party Labour is, who it is for, what its values are, what it wants to be in power for, what sort of country Britain should be in the 2020’s and beyond. And make damn sure that who are still inhaling and being intoxicated by the fumes of Corbyn’s dismal reign get out taking their toxicity with them or learn the new tunes.
On topic, if you have the time it is worth listening to the podcast Corbynism: The Post-Mortem. 11 episodes but you can pick the ones you’re most interested in. There are some really good interviewees and lots to learn - not just about Labour under Corbyn but politics in general.
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
I'll have a listen.
I noticed today a Labour members twitter, someone with quite a lot of followers, and he mentioned solidarity with the miners in his profile. I don't even know how to process that one.
It’s the Left’s version of the nostalgia of some on the right for Empire.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
When someone tells you the world is going to shit, it's fun to ask them what year they would like to be transported back to. Maybe they would have been happier before the end of rationing, or the elimination of smallpox, or the discovery of penicillin. Or maybe they would have liked 1919, or 1649, or maybe the fun and laughter of 1347 ? Presumably longer life, modern medicine, travel and education mean little besides the warm comfort of 'the good old days'.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
At this point I’d take 2015 and pray like mad that various actors here, in Europe and in the US took different decisions.....
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
When someone tells you the world is going to shit, it's fun to ask them what year they would like to be transported back to. Maybe they would have been happier before the end of rationing, or the elimination of smallpox, or the discovery of penicillin. Or maybe they would have liked 1919, or 1649, or maybe the fun and laughter of 1347 ? Presumably longer life, modern medicine, travel and education mean little besides the warm comfort of 'the good old days'.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
Not much of an argument, though. For one thing, we've all had the misfortune to be born before the elimination of cancer, or for that matter covid-19. Neither fact keeps me awake at night. For another, "is going to shit" doesn't imply that we have got there yet. Since the second world war tens of millions of people at least have lived in conditions where, yes, flipping back to any of the dates you mention couldn't have made things worse. How do you know we aren't headed that way?
Labour should ask for all the railways to now be taken back into public hands and for the UK to run them rather than foreign Governments, easy patriotic, pro-Britain sell
Labour should ask for all the railways to now be taken back into public hands and for the UK to run them rather than foreign Governments, easy patriotic, pro-Britain sell
Any govt that tries something that stupid is voluntarily sitting on a time bomb.
Approval will last precisely as long as it takes politically driven management and politically driven Unions to f*ck it all up again BR-style.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
You might be right, you might be wrong, but Im pretty sure no investigation would lead to a shared consensus in the US.
If Trump was controlled by Putin - why didn't he ban fracking? That would have prevented (or at least massively reduced) the fall in the oil prices which has crippled Russia.
Putin’s agenda is sowing discord within the US and mistrust between the US and its european allies. So far his backing Trump is paying off handsomely.
But oil price = power for Putin. It's his number 1 thing. I can't see any way that he could let that slide.
In which case, he should want a really prosperous Europe (and everywhere else in the world) sucking in oil and gas exports.
Except, I *think*, that Putin is a traditional Russian Nationalist. They fundamentally don't believe in the win-win.
He thinks in terms of Russia being either the victor or the victim. The good version, for him, is a European beholden to the Mighty Russian Empire.
Labour should ask for all the railways to now be taken back into public hands and for the UK to run them rather than foreign Governments, easy patriotic, pro-Britain sell
Any govt that tries something that stupid is voluntarily sitting on a time bomb.
Approval will last precisely as long as it takes politically driven management and politically driven Unions to f*ck it all up again BR-style.
The problem I have with this narrative - and I am no fan of the Lib Dems in coalition nor their performance since - is what else he expected the LDs to do in 2010.
The numbers for a coalition with Labour weren't there, is he suggesting a C&S with the Tories in which case I suppose that makes a bit more sense, not clear though
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
When someone tells you the world is going to shit, it's fun to ask them what year they would like to be transported back to. Maybe they would have been happier before the end of rationing, or the elimination of smallpox, or the discovery of penicillin. Or maybe they would have liked 1919, or 1649, or maybe the fun and laughter of 1347 ? Presumably longer life, modern medicine, travel and education mean little besides the warm comfort of 'the good old days'.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
1999, that's a pretty easy one. Scotland have just won the rugby, the economy is booming, the middle east hasn't been disasterously destabalised with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
The Matrix got it right, it really was the peak of human civilisation.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
I was doing my usual browse through the latest reports of doom and disaster in the newspapers earlier this week, and chanced upon an article about Stoicism and the writings of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. I've now ordered a copy of the Meditations and an accompanying analysis.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
I don't agree that it's going to shit at all - it's moving forward as it always has done.
When someone tells you the world is going to shit, it's fun to ask them what year they would like to be transported back to. Maybe they would have been happier before the end of rationing, or the elimination of smallpox, or the discovery of penicillin. Or maybe they would have liked 1919, or 1649, or maybe the fun and laughter of 1347 ? Presumably longer life, modern medicine, travel and education mean little besides the warm comfort of 'the good old days'.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
Not much of an argument, though. For one thing, we've all had the misfortune to be born before the elimination of cancer, or for that matter covid-19. Neither fact keeps me awake at night. For another, "is going to shit" doesn't imply that we have got there yet. Since the second world war tens of millions of people at least have lived in conditions where, yes, flipping back to any of the dates you mention couldn't have made things worse. How do you know we aren't headed that way?
I'm not sure that you comprehend the levels of progress that human society have made. The homeless on the street have better medical care and life expectancy than Kings of England in the range of dates above.
The problem I have with this narrative - and I am no fan of the Lib Dems in coalition nor their performance since - is what else he expected the LDs to do in 2010.
The numbers for a coalition with Labour weren't there, is he suggesting a C&S with the Tories in which case I suppose that makes a bit more sense, not clear though
It's obvious what he thinks they should have done: backed the return of Tony Blair as PM from the Lords.
Comments
This tired old "cut my taxes and slash services" response is almost a knee-jerk reaction to any economic change.
If things are going well, cut taxes (we can afford to) - if things are going badly, cut taxes and public spending (it's time those overpaid public sector bureaucrats felt a bit of pain too).
Apparently the Jews created the coronavirus to help the Muslims takeover the world.
In return the Muslims will provide the Jews with children to kill/eat.
The problems in Palestine are just a smoke screen to make the world think Jews and Muslims hate each other.
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1300133040010735618
The pedophiles on 4chan do indeed use "pizza" as a code word for child pornography. Then, when the Podesta emails were released some wag on 4chan, exposed to the pizza terminology, decided that every Podesta email that referenced pizza actually went child porn.
That's how Pizzagate was born. Pizzagate is, of course, part of QAnon cannon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Rebels#Rebels_who_had_whip_withdrawn
How long before the government admits it has c**ked up quarantining Austria?
ideologyhorseshit of declaring that "sabotage" is the only reason that The True Way has failed.There was tax relief on interest payments on £30k of mortgage for each individual or married couple, and unmarried couples got 2 allowances so £60k. Discrimination *against* married couples.
Nigel Lawson announced in his budget speech on March 15 1988 that:
"Under the present system an unmarried couple can get twice as much mortgage interest relief as a married couple. This has attracted increasing—and justified—criticism. I propose to put a stop to it as from August this year. Thereafter, the £30,000 limit on mortgage interest relief will be related to the house or flat, irrespective of the number of borrowers. "
Interest rates were nearly 10% so it made a hell of a difference.
So unmarried couples went bonkers buying houses for the next 4 months, knowing that they would get a benefit of about £700-800 per year at a time when average full time salary was about £12000.
They knew precisely that they would benefit when they completed by 31 July.
House prices went up by 20% between Q1 and Q3 1988, and 25% that year. That was about 4x faster than either 1987 or 1989. (Nationwide)
My gut is that when we are able to analyse the split in turnout, we'll see Registered Republicans at 33-34%, well up on their 28% of the electorate. Simply, those Republicans that remain *are* enthused by Trump, and it would be very naive not to admit that.
Democrats, on the other hand, will end up probably slight underperforming their number of Registered voters, and the Independent gap will be even bigger.
So, something like 38 D, 34 R, 27 I sounds like a perfectly plausible split.
If you don't want to be quarantined then don't travel overseas during a pandemic.
The 20 or so who voted with the opposition when Boris repeated Major's trick were more extreme than even the likes of Bill Cash etc who with Maastricht refused to rebel at that point.
No wonder the Cons are on 40%. And how are your knees?
The one with Sir John Curtice is very good and makes the point that, while Corbyn was a titanically unpopular leader, more than his departure is needed for Labour to recover. It needs to work out what sort of party it is given that it holds both middle class seats and seats which are poor. It cannot simply think that with a few tweaks and nice policies it can go back to being the party for the working-class, as it was for much of the 20th century. It needs to cast off the Durham Miners Gala-style sentimentality and take a cool hard look at where its support is and who its coming from.
I’d be interested in what Labour people think of it, if any have heard it.
The other two episodes I found fascinating were the ones on Scottish Labour and Defining Corbynism.
It's all the fault of the nesting :-# . Difficult following indentation lines for several screens.
Quarantining foreign travellers during a pandemic is far better than going back to lockdowns.
That is not the case here.
If the world is going to shit (well, we know it's going to shit, it's merely a question of how badly) then thinking about how to endure disasters that are almost entirely out of one's own control would seem wise.
With Covid, there won't even be local elections for another nine months. Given the current outstanding internal issues with Labour, and the fact that pretty much all governing apart from dealing with Covid has gone out of the window, he would be crazy to start trying to float ideas now.
After Brexit is done, however it turns out, the voters that lent their votes to the Cons to "get Brexit done" will be up for grabs again. That’s the time to start looking like a government in waiting.
Right now, anything Labour does will either make them look ineffectual (because they’re not in government) or make it easier to make them look anti-Brexit & therefore anti-the group of voters that they might well need in the next GE. Why take the risk?
Frankly, whether Brexit is intrinsically "good" or "bad", the qualities displayed by the current government suggest they’re going to make a hash of it regardless. Why get in the way of your opponent when they’re insisting on making mistakes that you can’t rectify or prevent, even if it was in the national interest to do so?
I noticed today a Labour members twitter, someone with quite a lot of followers, and he mentioned solidarity with the miners in his profile. I don't even know how to process that one.
https://twitter.com/TomBlenkinsop/status/1300155872900009985
Good luck with that.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/30/the-johnson-method-of-government-total-power-with-absolutely-no-responsibility
Parliament returns this week with a growing number of Conservative MPs anxious that a summer strewn with screeching U-turns and howling errors is giving their government a reputation for blithering ineptitude that is draining away public support.
The shrewder people on the Conservative benches know that power without responsibility is a poisoned method of governing that will rebound on their party. A cabinet of blunderers is bad enough. A cabinet that refuses to take any responsibility for its mistakes invites an especially severe verdict from the public.
So come on folks, what year would you *really* like to be living in?
The things they produce which I like. Favourable. Those I don't not.
Which, I suspect would be true of most.
Except it seems to be another bloody "culture war" touchstone.
1. They need to try and scrutinise. It may be hard but necessary especially with regard to all the changes the govt is making to the machinery of government. These may not be of interest to the public but they still matter and they must not go through by default and without scrutiny.
2. What they do say publicly must be very much as if they are speaking for the public, saying what the public is thinking and saying. There is already a smell of “one law for us, one for them” etc so this could be a useful meme to use. But Starmer needs to talk less like a lawyer in a courtroom - the public don’t care about forensic analyses of letters etc - and with more passion and well-controlled, well-directed common-sense-like fury at the government’s failings and the effect this is having on real people. He needs to drive a wedge between the Tories and their somewhat hubristic claim to represent the People.
And in the background he (Starmer) needs to do the hard work of working out what sort of party Labour is, who it is for, what its values are, what it wants to be in power for, what sort of country Britain should be in the 2020’s and beyond. And make damn sure that who are still inhaling and being intoxicated by the fumes of Corbyn’s dismal reign get out taking their toxicity with them or learn the new tunes.
Trebles all round!
Where is the money coming from?
https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1300153163849310213
Having a 55-year old man with the moral maturity of a 5-year old as our PM is our misfortune not his. At this point I’d take 2015 and pray like mad that various actors here, in Europe and in the US took different decisions.....
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1300101114918961152
tears for Piers.
Farage is on the news all the bloody time, on every single issue he gets a comment.
For goodness sake you got the Government you wanted, yet the problem is still somewhere else
Approval will last precisely as long as it takes politically driven management and politically driven Unions to f*ck it all up again BR-style.
He thinks in terms of Russia being either the victor or the victim. The good version, for him, is a European beholden to the Mighty Russian Empire.
https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/1299953216277315585?s=21
The numbers for a coalition with Labour weren't there, is he suggesting a C&S with the Tories in which case I suppose that makes a bit more sense, not clear though
The Matrix got it right, it really was the peak of human civilisation.
Have you ever seen the following?
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/GDP-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270_v6_850x600.svg