On the principle that you should look at what somebody does for how they truly feel, not what they say, the second one is perhaps more interesting. Not only is a change from the previous approach but look at where they are canvassing:
"Beginning this weekend, the Biden campaign will send out several hundred volunteers to reach voters in Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, with the efforts expanding, in a phased approach, to 17 battleground states, one official said."
Now, I may be looking at things from a skewed angle and there are maybe logistical reasons involved, but I don't know why the Biden campaign would have Nevada and NH as two of their first states for this approach unless (a) they think numbers are tight here and / or (b) they recognise the election might be tight and therefore even states with 4-5 electoral votes might be crucial.
If you believe 538, these have a serious chance of being tipping point states (i.e. the state where the 270th EV will be won and lost) - they have Pennsylvania at 30.8% probability, Michigan 9.8%, Nevada (a much smaller state, mind) 2.9% and New Hampshire (a tiny state) 1.7%. Texas - despite being huge and much discussed - has only a 1.5% chance. Some of the states talked about as outside Biden bets have a much less than 1% chance.
Crucially as far as your chain of logic goes, those basic facts don't change if Biden was 20% ahead in the polls or if he was 20% behind. If he wins big, then maybe he'll win South Carolina. If he loses big, then maybe he'll lose Washington. But the 270th electoral vote when you order the states by margin will still be provided by Pennsylvania or one of those.
This isn't like the UK where, if a party thinks it's on course to win big it pulls resources out of the ultra marginal to attack the 10k opposition majority seat. There is nothing beyond vanity in winning big over winning small. You throw everything into the tipping points and, if he wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Nevada crushingly and in the process loses South Carolina narrowly, Biden won't give a tuppenny jizz about that.
That makes sense and there is an argument for saying you have to start somewhere. But presumably you don't just base your strategy on what 538 thinks is the tipping point, you take a view on where you think might need the most shoring up and quickest, and start there?
Professor Gupta's whole point is that enforced or even voluntary changes in human behaviour at best only delay the inevitable at an enormous residual cost (beyond a possible six week initial lockdown phase). The virus finds a way.
If that's her whole point, why did she propagate the idea that the virus had already found its way to infecting half the population by March?
How do we know that isn;t the case when many of those who have had corona have no antibodies? When some of the positives we get now could be tells from a previous bout of infection earlier in the year?
Equally it would be useful overall if the Independence campaign had multiple parties to allow other policies to get an airing.
That's not the way independence campaigns work. Stage 1: Nationalist party wins big enough to achieve it's aim Stage 2: Nationalist party splits into 'sort of' left and right.
If the Party splits before 'freedom', the aim is not achieved.
Well, Catalonia has achieved regional parliamentary majority 'wins' with a gamut of left and right based indy parties, but admittedly that means nothing toward achieving the ultimate goal.
Quite looking forward to the start of what could be the last series of HIGNFY tonight. Might, of course, be saved because it went some way to improving Johnson's career.
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
It's getting to the Samson stage. Can anyone plot a graph of his barnet over the months? We could extrapolate forward on the basis that he'll leave No 10 on the day his head becomes indistinguishable from Matt Lucas's.
We can call "Crossover!" when baby Bozo has more hair than his dad.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad - - - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were right
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
Polio outbreaks regularly saw American towns/regions put under lockdown and quarantined.
That behaviour did not stop polio. The vaccines against it did. Those lockdowns might still be there if real science had not intervened.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Yes effective vaccines are the what we are aiming for. We do not yet have vaccines. We need to use science reduce the infection rates now. That includes using lockdown policies if and when things get out of hand. There is science behind quarrantining as well as just vaccines.
Yes. Quarantines, sterilisation of tools and items, handwashing, keeping ones distance, tracing infected individuals (eg Typhoid Mary), cleaning hospitals, and many other methods can and have been used for various diseases and outbreaks over the centuries in the absence of vaccinations.
Yes and how did those work out?
In the 14 th century people had never been more spread out or less travelled. People had not idea what caused the black death but they knew that human contact was bad. Plenty of distancing then eh?
Result? wipe out of up to sixty per cent of the population of Europe.
What was the rate of mortality as people did summersaults to avoid each other down the centuries. Absolutely terrible until real, science based treatments came in such as vaccines and anti-biotics.
Professor Gupta's whole point is that enforced or even voluntary changes in human behaviour at best only delay the inevitable at an enormous residual cost (beyond a possible six week initial lockdown phase). The virus finds a way.
Its almost as if there a mass of evidence that changes in human behaviour a are really crap way of controlling disease. Something that is becoming more obvious by the day.
Bubonic plague was spread by fleas that lived on rats, so human distancing made little to no difference to the spread of the disease.
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
I was listening to a Conservative economist earlier on the radio, who was suggesting if we want to grow the NHS spend and pensions to deal with demand and political expediency, tax rises are a necessity sooner rather than later. He suggested QA has been maxed out, we have cut defence spending in the last ten years to the point it is difficult to go further, and all other Government departments have been cut to the bone to feed the insatiable NHS and DWP.
Equally it would be useful overall if the Independence campaign had multiple parties to allow other policies to get an airing.
That's not the way independence campaigns work. Stage 1: Nationalist party wins big enough to achieve it's aim Stage 2: Nationalist party splits into 'sort of' left and right.
If the Party splits before 'freedom', the aim is not achieved.
Well, Catalonia has achieved regional parliamentary majority 'wins' with a gamut of left and right based indy parties, but admittedly that means nothing toward achieving the ultimate goal.
Indeed, but I suggest that if there was one Catalonian Nationalist Party it would more easily get both a controlling bloc in the Regional Parliament and in the National one.
Oh dear. You're not going to get the money to effect societal change just by soaking the rich a bit more.
Firstly, the top 5% will include lots of senior medical personages, many of whom will show their commitment to Our Beloved NHS by buggering off to take up a more lucrative gig in Australia if they are singled out. A good deal of the remainder of the 5% will also be highly mobile and not keen on being parted from more and more of their salaries either.
Secondly, there aren't enough of them.
The sustainable route to social democracy lies directly through the soaking of the entire population. You might ask a bit less in terms of a tax hike of low wage earners and the retired than you do of better off workers or the very wealthy, but everyone else has to pay more. Otherwise, if you just go after the rich and big businesses, then most of them cut investment or run away and you drive your economy into the ground. That simply results in the return of the Tories and a bigger helping of what might be described in some parts of the political spectrum as disaster capitalism than what came before.
Hunting down the minted may be good red meat for Starmer's followers, and may even be an effective populist position, but it's just as well he's got plenty of time to come up with an actual plan because narrowing the tax base still further ain't gonna cut it.
So for the average taxpayer basically it is 'first they came for the rich, then they came for you'.
Starmer would be our most leftwing PM since Harold Wilson, he is only 'centrist' relative to Corbyn
But is Starmer's leftism necessarily a bad thing? I mean, clearly coming from the Conservative standpoint yes, it's awful, but from the point of view of giving voters two clear, distinct and plausible directions to travel in, neither of which involves electing the IRA Veterans' Support Society (Islington branch) to run the show?
The electorate has settled into the position where it simultaneously expects a comprehensive welfare state (notably endless inflation-busting pension increases, elderly care that doesn't entail homeowners having to sell up to fund it, and unlimited helpings of cash for Our Beloved NHS,) but doesn't want to be made to cough up for any of it. Most voters think that they are precious and special for whatever reason, and that someone else should always be soaked to pay for the things they want - usually "The Rich" (variously described as Richard Branson, celebrity footballers, investment bankers, or everyone who earns at least £1 per year more than they do.) That's arguably one of the key reasons why the country is in such a complete bloody mess.
It's therefore past time that voters were forced to make their minds up. We'd be far better off committing to a course and going for a more American free-market, low tax model, in which we rely mainly on economic dynamism to float all the boats and leave anyone who sinks to drown; or go Scandinavian. Perhaps we might get a choice akin to that from a Sunak vs Starmer competition in a few years' time? Regardless, the cakeism has to stop.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately cakesism is popular in this country, as attested to by the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of Boris Johnson PM and the Great British Bake Off.
And Strictly Come Dancing and Michael McIntyre.
Ouch. Both of those are much loved in my household. I know it's not trendy to like MM but his show is solid Saturday night family viewing, and he is a talented comic who delivers decent if unthreatening material well, IMHO. Of course he is not a patch on the somewhat similar Peter Kay, but then who is? As for Strictly, I mean what's not to love?
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
Quite looking forward to the start of what could be the last series of HIGNFY tonight. Might, of course, be saved because it went some way to improving Johnson's career.
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
If it wants to be extended then finding a way to be funny again and less full of itself would be better. HIGNFY used to be hilarious, in recent years not so much.
It's getting to the Samson stage. Can anyone plot a graph of his barnet over the months? We could extrapolate forward on the basis that he'll leave No 10 on the day his head becomes indistinguishable from Matt Lucas's.
We can call "Crossover!" when baby Bozo has more hair than his dad.
Which baby? Some of the older ones are teens and twenties, aren't they?
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad - - - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were right
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
Polio outbreaks regularly saw American towns/regions put under lockdown and quarantined.
That behaviour did not stop polio. The vaccines against it did. Those lockdowns might still be there if real science had not intervened.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Yes effective vaccines are the what we are aiming for. We do not yet have vaccines. We need to use science reduce the infection rates now. That includes using lockdown policies if and when things get out of hand. There is science behind quarrantining as well as just vaccines.
Yes. Quarantines, sterilisation of tools and items, handwashing, keeping ones distance, tracing infected individuals (eg Typhoid Mary), cleaning hospitals, and many other methods can and have been used for various diseases and outbreaks over the centuries in the absence of vaccinations.
...and caused a collapse in the death rates from various diseases.
People may mock the Victorian saying of "Cleanliness is next to godliness" - but I suspect that if mockers had experienced the discovery drains and soap meant not having to bury 50% of your immediate family before you were 30.......
Oh dear. You're not going to get the money to effect societal change just by soaking the rich a bit more.
Firstly, the top 5% will include lots of senior medical personages, many of whom will show their commitment to Our Beloved NHS by buggering off to take up a more lucrative gig in Australia if they are singled out. A good deal of the remainder of the 5% will also be highly mobile and not keen on being parted from more and more of their salaries either.
Secondly, there aren't enough of them.
The sustainable route to social democracy lies directly through the soaking of the entire population. You might ask a bit less in terms of a tax hike of low wage earners and the retired than you do of better off workers or the very wealthy, but everyone else has to pay more. Otherwise, if you just go after the rich and big businesses, then most of them cut investment or run away and you drive your economy into the ground. That simply results in the return of the Tories and a bigger helping of what might be described in some parts of the political spectrum as disaster capitalism than what came before.
Hunting down the minted may be good red meat for Starmer's followers, and may even be an effective populist position, but it's just as well he's got plenty of time to come up with an actual plan because narrowing the tax base still further ain't gonna cut it.
So for the average taxpayer basically it is 'first they came for the rich, then they came for you'.
Starmer would be our most leftwing PM since Harold Wilson, he is only 'centrist' relative to Corbyn
But is Starmer's leftism necessarily a bad thing? I mean, clearly coming from the Conservative standpoint yes, it's awful, but from the point of view of giving voters two clear, distinct and plausible directions to travel in, neither of which involves electing the IRA Veterans' Support Society (Islington branch) to run the show?
The electorate has settled into the position where it simultaneously expects a comprehensive welfare state (notably endless inflation-busting pension increases, elderly care that doesn't entail homeowners having to sell up to fund it, and unlimited helpings of cash for Our Beloved NHS,) but doesn't want to be made to cough up for any of it. Most voters think that they are precious and special for whatever reason, and that someone else should always be soaked to pay for the things they want - usually "The Rich" (variously described as Richard Branson, celebrity footballers, investment bankers, or everyone who earns at least £1 per year more than they do.) That's arguably one of the key reasons why the country is in such a complete bloody mess.
It's therefore past time that voters were forced to make their minds up. We'd be far better off committing to a course and going for a more American free-market, low tax model, in which we rely mainly on economic dynamism to float all the boats and leave anyone who sinks to drown; or go Scandinavian. Perhaps we might get a choice akin to that from a Sunak vs Starmer competition in a few years' time? Regardless, the cakeism has to stop.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately cakesism is popular in this country, as attested to by the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of Boris Johnson PM and the Great British Bake Off.
And Strictly Come Dancing and Michael McIntyre.
Ouch. Both of those are much loved in my household. I know it's not trendy to like MM but his show is solid Saturday night family viewing, and he is a talented comic who delivers decent if unthreatening material well, IMHO. Of course he is not a patch on the somewhat similar Peter Kay, but then who is? As for Strictly, I mean what's not to love?
I despise Strictly Come Dancing so much that I even refuse to familiarise the product by calling it "Strictly".
It's getting to the Samson stage. Can anyone plot a graph of his barnet over the months? We could extrapolate forward on the basis that he'll leave No 10 on the day his head becomes indistinguishable from Matt Lucas's.
We can call "Crossover!" when baby Bozo has more hair than his dad.
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad - - - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were right
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
Polio outbreaks regularly saw American towns/regions put under lockdown and quarantined.
That behaviour did not stop polio. The vaccines against it did. Those lockdowns might still be there if real science had not intervened.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Yes effective vaccines are the what we are aiming for. We do not yet have vaccines. We need to use science reduce the infection rates now. That includes using lockdown policies if and when things get out of hand. There is science behind quarrantining as well as just vaccines.
Yes. Quarantines, sterilisation of tools and items, handwashing, keeping ones distance, tracing infected individuals (eg Typhoid Mary), cleaning hospitals, and many other methods can and have been used for various diseases and outbreaks over the centuries in the absence of vaccinations.
Yes and how did those work out?
In the 14 th century people had never been more spread out or less travelled. People had not idea what caused the black death but they knew that human contact was bad. Plenty of distancing then eh?
Result? wipe out of up to sixty per cent of the population of Europe.
What was the rate of mortality as people did summersaults to avoid each other down the centuries. Absolutely terrible until real, science based treatments came in such as vaccines and anti-biotics.
Professor Gupta's whole point is that enforced or even voluntary changes in human behaviour at best only delay the inevitable at an enormous residual cost (beyond a possible six week initial lockdown phase). The virus finds a way.
Its almost as if there a mass of evidence that changes in human behaviour a are really crap way of controlling disease. Something that is becoming more obvious by the day.
Bubonic plague was spread by fleas that lived on rats, so human distancing made little to no difference to the spread of the disease.
The account I read said human to human also to via cough and infected tissue but its a good point.
Mr. kinabalu, the rich don't need state services the same way the poor do.
How does it benefit the poor if the state is financially punitive for the wealthy, and thereby raise less funds for services upon which the poor rely?
An aggressive stance might make the left feel better if it leads to less income then it's not worthless, it's worse than worthless. Like the Black Prince winning the Battle of Najera only to find his mercenaries' wages exceeded his plunder.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Oh dear. You're not going to get the money to effect societal change just by soaking the rich a bit more.
Firstly, the top 5% will include lots of senior medical personages, many of whom will show their commitment to Our Beloved NHS by buggering off to take up a more lucrative gig in Australia if they are singled out. A good deal of the remainder of the 5% will also be highly mobile and not keen on being parted from more and more of their salaries either.
Secondly, there aren't enough of them.
The sustainable route to social democracy lies directly through the soaking of the entire population. You might ask a bit less in terms of a tax hike of low wage earners and the retired than you do of better off workers or the very wealthy, but everyone else has to pay more. Otherwise, if you just go after the rich and big businesses, then most of them cut investment or run away and you drive your economy into the ground. That simply results in the return of the Tories and a bigger helping of what might be described in some parts of the political spectrum as disaster capitalism than what came before.
Hunting down the minted may be good red meat for Starmer's followers, and may even be an effective populist position, but it's just as well he's got plenty of time to come up with an actual plan because narrowing the tax base still further ain't gonna cut it.
So for the average taxpayer basically it is 'first they came for the rich, then they came for you'.
Starmer would be our most leftwing PM since Harold Wilson, he is only 'centrist' relative to Corbyn
But is Starmer's leftism necessarily a bad thing? I mean, clearly coming from the Conservative standpoint yes, it's awful, but from the point of view of giving voters two clear, distinct and plausible directions to travel in, neither of which involves electing the IRA Veterans' Support Society (Islington branch) to run the show?
The electorate has settled into the position where it simultaneously expects a comprehensive welfare state (notably endless inflation-busting pension increases, elderly care that doesn't entail homeowners having to sell up to fund it, and unlimited helpings of cash for Our Beloved NHS,) but doesn't want to be made to cough up for any of it. Most voters think that they are precious and special for whatever reason, and that someone else should always be soaked to pay for the things they want - usually "The Rich" (variously described as Richard Branson, celebrity footballers, investment bankers, or everyone who earns at least £1 per year more than they do.) That's arguably one of the key reasons why the country is in such a complete bloody mess.
It's therefore past time that voters were forced to make their minds up. We'd be far better off committing to a course and going for a more American free-market, low tax model, in which we rely mainly on economic dynamism to float all the boats and leave anyone who sinks to drown; or go Scandinavian. Perhaps we might get a choice akin to that from a Sunak vs Starmer competition in a few years' time? Regardless, the cakeism has to stop.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately cakesism is popular in this country, as attested to by the otherwise inexplicable phenomena of Boris Johnson PM and the Great British Bake Off.
And Strictly Come Dancing and Michael McIntyre.
Ouch. Both of those are much loved in my household. I know it's not trendy to like MM but his show is solid Saturday night family viewing, and he is a talented comic who delivers decent if unthreatening material well, IMHO. Of course he is not a patch on the somewhat similar Peter Kay, but then who is? As for Strictly, I mean what's not to love?
I despise Strictly Come Dancing so much that I even refuse to familiarise the product by calling it "Strictly".
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
Tested negative: Dem: Mike and Karen Pence, Kamala; Rep: Ivanka, Jared, Barron. Tested positive: Rep: Hope Hicks, Donald Trump, Ronna McDaniel.
Not known: Dem: Joe Biden; Rep: Eric, Don Jr.
On Joe Biden: NYT: "Spokesmen for Mr. Biden did not immediately respond to questions about whether he had been tested since returning from debate travel. In late August, the Biden campaign said Mr. Biden would be tested regularly, and that staff members who interacted with him would also be tested regularly. The campaign said it would announce publicly if Mr. Biden ever has a confirmed case of the coronavirus." (Emphasis added.)
Is the NYT suggesting that Biden had a quick test that was positive and is awaiting the result of a more robust one? Or maybe he's trying to stay out of the limelight for a bit. Sensible strategy given his opponent is in big trouble.
As for President Trump, he is showing symptoms - this has been obvious since his physician said he would take time to "convalesce".
On the Family: strange they release test results for two offspring (plus one spouse) but not the other three.
Today's NHS England hospital stats are out. Total new Covid deaths confirmed by test: 47, all from 26 Sept or later, split as follows:
North West: 19 NE & Yorks: 10 Midlands: 6 London: 6 South East: 4 East: 2 South West: 0
In all, a pattern not unlike what one might have expected. Split by age, 24 were 80 or older, 20 were aged 60-79, and the remaining three were from the 40-59 bracket.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
They aren't, there is 1 lead US story on the main page of the BBC news website, 12 UK and Brexit stories
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
They aren't, there is 1 lead US story on the main page of the BBC news website, 12 UK and Brexit stories
Tested negative: Dem: Mike and Karen Pence, Kamala; Rep: Ivanka, Jared, Barron. Tested positive: Rep: Hope Hicks, Donald Trump, Ronna McDaniel.
Not known: Dem: Joe Biden; Rep: Eric, Don Jr.
On Joe Biden: NYT: "Spokesmen for Mr. Biden did not immediately respond to questions about whether he had been tested since returning from debate travel. In late August, the Biden campaign said Mr. Biden would be tested regularly, and that staff members who interacted with him would also be tested regularly. The campaign said it would announce publicly if Mr. Biden ever has a confirmed case of the coronavirus." (Emphasis added.)
Is the NYT suggesting that Biden had a quick test that was positive and is awaiting the result of a more robust one? Or maybe he's trying to stay out of the limelight for a bit. Sensible strategy given his opponent is in big trouble.
As for President Trump, he is showing symptoms - this has been obvious since his physician said he would take time to "convalesce".
Equally it would be useful overall if the Independence campaign had multiple parties to allow other policies to get an airing.
That's not the way independence campaigns work. Stage 1: Nationalist party wins big enough to achieve it's aim Stage 2: Nationalist party splits into 'sort of' left and right.
If the Party splits before 'freedom', the aim is not achieved.
Well, Catalonia has achieved regional parliamentary majority 'wins' with a gamut of left and right based indy parties, but admittedly that means nothing toward achieving the ultimate goal.
Indeed, but I suggest that if there was one Catalonian Nationalist Party it would more easily get both a controlling bloc in the Regional Parliament and in the National one.
Maybe, but at least it allows for wider expression of what they'd like an indy state to be like, whilst acknowledging their shared cooperation on the end goal of indy. Our unionist parties seem embarrassed to work together on that issue which they shouldn't even though they disagree on do much else.
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
They aren't, there is 1 lead US story on the main page of the BBC news website, 12 UK and Brexit stories
I said the broadcast media and I have it on and nothing else is being discussed
Increasingly most people get their news online, especially younger people and the election of the most powerful man in the world in just a month's time affects us probably more than any of the other stories on the website bar Brexit and Covid which have been covered to death over recent months
Quite looking forward to the start of what could be the last series of HIGNFY tonight. Might, of course, be saved because it went some way to improving Johnson's career.
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
He probably regards praise or support (intentional or not) as his due so no need to reward.
Quite looking forward to the start of what could be the last series of HIGNFY tonight. Might, of course, be saved because it went some way to improving Johnson's career.
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
If it wants to be extended then finding a way to be funny again and less full of itself would be better. HIGNFY used to be hilarious, in recent years not so much.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
I suspect that Boris Johnson was in vastly better health. He's nearly twenty years younger and has at least some interest in exercise (which Trump reportedly regards as counter-productive.) Trump's purportedly not very into getting a good night's sleep either.
Anyway, if there's any realistic prospect of President Pence then we shouldn't have to wait too long to find out.
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Don't speak to soon. We have to hope the outbreak here is levelling off but we can't know for sure until next week sometime.
The PB Swedish Covid Death Sex Party looks like being cancelled, but the prospect of a Trump one to replace it seems to have sated the appetite of the cheerleaders of doom
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
They aren't, there is 1 lead US story on the main page of the BBC news website, 12 UK and Brexit stories
I said the broadcast media and I have it on and nothing else is being discussed
Increasingly most people get their news online, especially younger people and the election of the most powerful man in the world in just a month's time affects us probably more than any of the other stories on the website bar Brexit and Covid which have been covered to death over recent months
And you think that voters are immersed in US politics while they are in lockdown, under great stress, and frightened
The story should be covered but not at the exclusion of everything else
And an unfortunate use of wording in your last paragraph
Oh dear. You're not going to get the money to effect societal change just by soaking the rich a bit more.
Firstly, the top 5% will include lots of senior medical personages, many of whom will show their commitment to Our Beloved NHS by buggering off to take up a more lucrative gig in Australia if they are singled out. A good deal of the remainder of the 5% will also be highly mobile and not keen on being parted from more and more of their salaries either.
Secondly, there aren't enough of them.
The sustainable route to social democracy lies directly through the soaking of the entire population. You might ask a bit less in terms of a tax hike of low wage earners and the retired than you do of better off workers or the very wealthy, but everyone else has to pay more. Otherwise, if you just go after the rich and big businesses, then most of them cut investment or run away and you drive your economy into the ground. That simply results in the return of the Tories and a bigger helping of what might be described in some parts of the political spectrum as disaster capitalism than what came before.
Hunting down the minted may be good red meat for Starmer's followers, and may even be an effective populist position, but it's just as well he's got plenty of time to come up with an actual plan because narrowing the tax base still further ain't gonna cut it.
Note that he doesn't actually say that raising income tax on the rich is "his priority" - it's a mischievous headline. He listed 10 priorities, one of which was higher taxes for the very rich, corporates that escape UK taxation etc. He was asked if he stood by his priorities and said yes, so Waugh has picked that one out and named it as the priority. It would be bonkers if raising personal income tax was the one thing he thought really important, but of course he doesn't.
It's good practice in watching for media gotchas though!
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
Boris is a lot younger, but he was quite a lot fatter and he drinks. Boris was hospitalised on day 10 after the test, then in ICU on days 11-14.
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
We ought probably to wait for the UK wide numbers to be updated before doing the maths, but the point is taken. Devolved matters aren't entirely ignored, but one suspects that something catastrophic would have to happen somewhere outside of England for it to command serious attention.
One thing I have noticed, however, is that the dog whistling at Holyrood about shutting the border to the plague-bearing English seems to have ceased.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
Betdaq :.
In the event a candidate in a market dies through assassination then the market is void. Should a candidate die naturally, then the market will be settled as usual.
Just bought £30 of Pence at 37.0. It might in fact be marginally poor value but my suspended Betfair position is nice right now so this feels like appropriate insurance should that market get voided.
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
The broadcast media have been taken over by the Americans
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
They aren't, there is 1 lead US story on the main page of the BBC news website, 12 UK and Brexit stories
I said the broadcast media and I have it on and nothing else is being discussed
Increasingly most people get their news online, especially younger people and the election of the most powerful man in the world in just a month's time affects us probably more than any of the other stories on the website bar Brexit and Covid which have been covered to death over recent months
And you think that voters are immersed in US politics while they are in lockdown, under great stress, and frightened
The story should be covered but not at the exclusion of everything else
And an unfortunate use of wording in your last paragraph
Well it is probably less stressful for the audience than the media going on about the latest Covid death rate and cases rising and how we are all doomed by Brexit and the economic after effects of the lockdown which is what they would mainly be covering instead!
The PB Swedish Covid Death Sex Party looks like being cancelled, but the prospect of a Trump one to replace it seems to have sated the appetite of the cheerleaders of doom
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
Betdaq :.
In the event a candidate in a market dies through assassination then the market is void. Should a candidate die naturally, then the market will be settled as usual.
Just bought £30 of Pence at 37.0. It might in fact be marginally poor value but my suspended Betfair position is nice right now so this feels like appropriate insurance should that market get voided.
Nice clear rules anyway.
You havent taken into account the poisoned microphone theory then?
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- Infection rates surge -
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad - - - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were right
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
Polio outbreaks regularly saw American towns/regions put under lockdown and quarantined.
That behaviour did not stop polio. The vaccines against it did. Those lockdowns might still be there if real science had not intervened.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Yes effective vaccines are the what we are aiming for. We do not yet have vaccines. We need to use science reduce the infection rates now. That includes using lockdown policies if and when things get out of hand. There is science behind quarrantining as well as just vaccines.
Yes. Quarantines, sterilisation of tools and items, handwashing, keeping ones distance, tracing infected individuals (eg Typhoid Mary), cleaning hospitals, and many other methods can and have been used for various diseases and outbreaks over the centuries in the absence of vaccinations.
Yes and how did those work out?
In the 14 th century people had never been more spread out or less travelled. People had not idea what caused the black death but they knew that human contact was bad. Plenty of distancing then eh?
Result? wipe out of up to sixty per cent of the population of Europe.
What was the rate of mortality as people did summersaults to avoid each other down the centuries. Absolutely terrible until real, science based treatments came in such as vaccines and anti-biotics.
Professor Gupta's whole point is that enforced or even voluntary changes in human behaviour at best only delay the inevitable at an enormous residual cost (beyond a possible six week initial lockdown phase). The virus finds a way.
Its almost as if there a mass of evidence that changes in human behaviour a are really crap way of controlling disease. Something that is becoming more obvious by the day.
Just nonsense from start to finish. Are you assuming that people are more spread out if there are fewer of them, because they are evenly distributed across the available land mass, and towns and cities are not a thing? When you say "had never been more spread out" you realise world population was at a record high (about 3 times what it was at the time of Christ) in the 14th century? What is your evidence for "plenty of distancing"? You just deducing that from the even distribution fallacy?
You can't just say stuff, you know, with absolutely no care as to whether it is true or not.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
2171 new cases in NI, Scotland and Wales today. At that rate there would be nearly 11,000 cases in England. I wonder how much notice the London media will pay to Johnson apparently controlling the virus more effectively in England than the leaders of the devolved administrations?
Or it could be a feature of different "track and trace" systems being more efficient than others at tracking and tracing more positive cases?
Applying the 2020 heuristic, I am expecting that Trump gives it to Biden, Biden croaks, Trump recovers and beats Harris in the EC after losing the PV by 5 percentage points when the Supreme Court decides that postal votes need to stop being counted in Pennsylvania just before Harris pulls ahead, in a 5-4 decision where Barrett tips the balance in his favour.
Quite looking forward to the start of what could be the last series of HIGNFY tonight. Might, of course, be saved because it went some way to improving Johnson's career.
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
If it wants to be extended then finding a way to be funny again and less full of itself would be better. HIGNFY used to be hilarious, in recent years not so much.
Without an audience it's been poor.
Maybe it's the lack of an audience, but maybe the panel could do with an injection of fresh blood.
Who comes to mind? I recall a portly hack with scruffy hair and very posh mannerisms who later went into local politics.
I'm not one to minimise the risks of Covid at all, but to be fair the same phrases have been used (or could have been used) about the many people who have in fact had mild cases of the illness.
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Surely he doesn't get to pick before January, the ticket is already Trump/Pence and then the VP pick would need to go through a senate confirmation hearing.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Mr. kinabalu, the rich don't need state services the same way the poor do.
How does it benefit the poor if the state is financially punitive for the wealthy, and thereby raise less funds for services upon which the poor rely?
An aggressive stance might make the left feel better if it leads to less income then it's not worthless, it's worse than worthless. Like the Black Prince winning the Battle of Najera only to find his mercenaries' wages exceeded his plunder.
The rich should pay less tax than everyone else because they go private for everything? That sounds great (especially for the rich) but it won't work. Tax must be linked to the ability to pay. This is fundamental. The rich have a greater ability to pay taxes thus they should pay more than others do. The question is how much more. If the Treasury leaves cash on the table by taxing them at a rate which is lower than the optimum for aggregate revenue, the effect is higher taxes on the rest, tougher spending cuts, or more borrowing and/or money printing, none of which is good news. Plus, there is the perception problem. The fairness problem. This time "We're all in it together" needs to be more than a soundbite.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
1) Ted Cruz if he wanted to appeal to the base and Hispanic vote, Nikki Haley if he wants to appeal to women and independents. He would want to separate himself from the Trumps and Rubio has too many rumoured skeletons. 2) Brown would be a possibility for Harris or Buttigieg
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I'm not one to minimise the risks of Covid at all, but to be fair the same phrases have been used (or could have been used) about the many people who have in fact had mild cases of the illness.
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
'enabling the United Kingdom to further develop its fishing opportunities' a deal can be done on that basis, state aid is something where the UK can compromise on
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
True. But Trump comes across to me as physically very robust for 74. I have high hopes that he shrugs this off and gets back pronto to losing the election.
I`d back Trump against Johnson in a fist fight. Despite his small hands. 4/6 Trump 6/4 Johnson.
No question. Boris is a man of words whilst even with his words Trump is as aggressive as its humanly possible to be.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
No way, can't get them on the ticket now anyway. Better to get them through either a lame duck session for the GOP or go for senate confirmation for the Dems. Announcing now before the election will just put voters off.
At no point did I suggest anything that could be construed as an argument for the rich paying lower tax rates than other people.
You're more concerned with punitive taxation to hit individuals. I'm more concerned with maximising the tax take, which may occur with tax rates being higher or lower. If you squeeze the rich so they dodge the tax or just leave the country then there's a shortfall in revenues which principally affects the poorest, either through inferior funding for service provision or through rising taxes (or both).
I'm not one to minimise the risks of Covid at all, but to be fair the same phrases have been used (or could have been used) about the many people who have in fact had mild cases of the illness.
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
I didn't take that as the meaning, just that as you note mild symptoms to start don't prevent deterioration.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
RCS, do you have any suspicion at all that this 'Trump positive for Corona' is a stunt?
On a scale of 0 to 100, how certain are you that it's genuine?
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio? (2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Are you talking about the 2020 election?
If both candidates were to croak in the next two weeks, then surely Pence and Harris would need to announce their VP picks.
Which living former Presidents would go to Trump's state funeral? My guess is Jimmy Carter and George W Bush only, though the Clintons and Obamas would obviously go to Biden's state funeral along with Carter and Bush. Melania would put on her best Jackie Kennedy grieving widow act, then buy a huge mansion for Barron and herself in Palm Beach and seek a new billionaire to marry.
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I agree with that, but it just reinforces the point that for the rich the elasticity of the tax base wrt the tax rate is much greater than one. Targeting the rich for revenue is a fool's errand.
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
I'm not one to minimise the risks of Covid at all, but to be fair the same phrases have been used (or could have been used) about the many people who have in fact had mild cases of the illness.
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
People want him dead, don't be a fun sponge
Not me guv. I do not want him cheating that shellacking at the polls on 3/11.
Have to say the fact that they are reporting symptoms is probably a bad sign for Trump. Someone of his age and weight could see very serious symptoms very quickly.
'Minor' symptons
Boris started that way, he even came out to clap for the first Thursday.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
Boris is a lot younger, but he was quite a lot fatter and he drinks. Boris was hospitalised on day 10 after the test, then in ICU on days 11-14.
Age is a much stronger risk factor than anything else, and Trump is two decades older than Johnson. I don't think anyone has shown alcohol as a risk factor.
Mortality has dropped more at the older age ranges from March.
Starmer's focus on how much he can take from individuals rather than how much he can raise for the treasury is emblematic of how the left is so often economically wrong.
The tax rate on higher earners now is lower than it was, but raises more because people are content enough (relatively) to pay it without trying too many clever schemes or moving abroad.
The more you hike taxes the less that remains true. And in an interconnected world, the wealthy have all the choice they could want when it comes to residency.
It's foolish trying to have a socialist willy-waving contest about tax hikes. What matters is how much you can raise generally, not how much individuals pay.
Still, it remains reassuring that he's just a typically wrong lefty rather than a full-blown socialist cretin like Corbyn was.
If what matters is only the aggregate tax take regardless of fairness, it would lead to some bizarre policy choices. I think one has to accept that both are important. As to the interplay between rates and revenue, this is an uncertain area. My sense is there is scope for going higher than where we are. Let's hope so, because if there isn't it takes away a tool from a box that is already short on tools.
To find the maximum point on the Laffer curve the condition is that the elasticity of the tax base with respect to the tax rate is equal to one. Your sense is therefore that said elasticity <1. Others think >1. Since governments often try to tune the rate to get epsilon = 1, I would guess it is somewhere in that ballpark, meaning there is likely to be little scope for easy revenue raising just by putting up tax rates.
But there is more than one Laffer curve because (some privileged) people can choose whether their income is liable to Income Tax or Corporation Tax, or even Capital Gains Tax, as it suits them. I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
I agree with that, but it just reinforces the point that for the rich the elasticity of the tax base wrt the tax rate is much greater than one. Targeting the rich for revenue is a fool's errand.
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
Applying the 2020 heuristic, I am expecting that Trump gives it to Biden, Biden croaks, Trump recovers and beats Harris in the EC after losing the PV by 5 percentage points when the Supreme Court decides that postal votes need to stop being counted in Pennsylvania just before Harris pulls ahead, in a 5-4 decision where Barrett tips the balance in his favour.
Comments
Or is that the wrong PM we're talking about?
Although he doesn't seem to 'do' gratitude. Revenge, yes.
But I guess Tory tax rises are OK.
People may mock the Victorian saying of "Cleanliness is next to godliness" - but I suspect that if mockers had experienced the discovery drains and soap meant not having to bury 50% of your immediate family before you were 30.......
Fair enough, each to our own.
I`m right though.
How does it benefit the poor if the state is financially punitive for the wealthy, and thereby raise less funds for services upon which the poor rely?
An aggressive stance might make the left feel better if it leads to less income then it's not worthless, it's worse than worthless. Like the Black Prince winning the Battle of Najera only to find his mercenaries' wages exceeded his plunder.
https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2020/10/no-boris-johnson-didnt-get-a-poll-boost-from-catching-corona/
This is an important story but the coverage is non stop precluding any other news
It may suit the media who are obsessed with the US, but most people dealing the stress in their lives today are simply being starved of UK news on the altar of US politics
You are so wrong.
Tested positive: Rep: Hope Hicks, Donald Trump, Ronna McDaniel.
Not known: Dem: Joe Biden; Rep: Eric, Don Jr.
On Joe Biden: NYT: "Spokesmen for Mr. Biden did not immediately respond to questions about whether he had been tested since returning from debate travel. In late August, the Biden campaign said Mr. Biden would be tested regularly, and that staff members who interacted with him would also be tested regularly. The campaign said it would announce publicly if Mr. Biden ever has a confirmed case of the coronavirus." (Emphasis added.)
Is the NYT suggesting that Biden had a quick test that was positive and is awaiting the result of a more robust one? Or maybe he's trying to stay out of the limelight for a bit. Sensible strategy given his opponent is in big trouble.
As for President Trump, he is showing symptoms - this has been obvious since his physician said he would take time to "convalesce".
On the Family: strange they release test results for two offspring (plus one spouse) but not the other three.
North West: 19
NE & Yorks: 10
Midlands: 6
London: 6
South East: 4
East: 2
South West: 0
In all, a pattern not unlike what one might have expected. Split by age, 24 were 80 or older, 20 were aged 60-79, and the remaining three were from the 40-59 bracket.
Boris was probably in marginally better health than Trump as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
https://twitter.com/ProfChalmers/status/1312032645107404802?s=20
Anyway, if there's any realistic prospect of President Pence then we shouldn't have to wait too long to find out.
The story should be covered but not at the exclusion of everything else
And an unfortunate use of wording in your last paragraph
It's good practice in watching for media gotchas though!
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-history-of-kimberly-guilfoyles-departure-from-fox
It is absolutely extraordinary.
Boris was hospitalised on day 10 after the test, then in ICU on days 11-14.
One thing I have noticed, however, is that the dog whistling at Holyrood about shutting the border to the plague-bearing English seems to have ceased.
https://twitter.com/CoutureRoyals/status/1312001185545584642?s=20
In the event a candidate in a market dies through assassination then the market is void. Should a candidate die naturally, then the market will be settled as usual.
Just bought £30 of Pence at 37.0. It might in fact be marginally poor value but my suspended Betfair position is nice right now so this feels like appropriate insurance should that market get voided.
Nice clear rules anyway.
A negative test means you can carry on with whatever you had planned
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1311347004958584838?s=20
2020 aint done yet kids. Not by a long chalk.
You can't just say stuff, you know, with absolutely no care as to whether it is true or not.
Personal data privacy
State Aid
Fisheries is probably Gove's obsession.
No idea why carbon pricing has become an issue.
(1) Who does President Pence pick as his VP? One of the Trump children, or does he go for someone like Marco Rubio?
(2) And who will Kamala Harris select as her running mate? Someone from the Midwest, presumably, perhaps Sherrod Brown?
Who comes to mind? I recall a portly hack with scruffy hair and very posh mannerisms who later went into local politics.
What the hell has he been up to recently?
It is true that they can't be taken as meaning Trump won't deteriorate. But equally, they are shouldn't be taken as meaning he will.
Does Biden have it?
2) Brown would be a possibility for Harris or Buttigieg
I would welcome the synchronisation of these different taxes, i.e. same thresholds, same rates, to stop the egregious gaming of the system.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsIsabel/status/1312042249828659200
At no point did I suggest anything that could be construed as an argument for the rich paying lower tax rates than other people.
You're more concerned with punitive taxation to hit individuals. I'm more concerned with maximising the tax take, which may occur with tax rates being higher or lower. If you squeeze the rich so they dodge the tax or just leave the country then there's a shortfall in revenues which principally affects the poorest, either through inferior funding for service provision or through rising taxes (or both).
On a scale of 0 to 100, how certain are you that it's genuine?
Hopefully of course it does not come to that and Trump recovers and Biden avoids it
edit: MorrisDancer makes the point eloquently enough.
Mortality has dropped more at the older age ranges from March.