I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
I believe we're going to have a "Roaring Twenties" after this.
But not all sectors are the same and Construction/DIY/renovations etc seems to have done far, far better out of the pandemic than eg travel, tourism and hospitality.
Hence why I suggested eg 2 year tax relief on those sectors devastated. Your business might be doing well but speak to someone else in another sector and they're struggling to keep their heads above water.
The Chancellor shouldn't tax for 2 years IMO those who are really struggling, while letting taxes continue as normal on normal sectors. If you're doing really well then I'm sure you'd take the opportunity to eg have some taxfree meals out which will allow the likes of Ms Cyclefree Jr to catch back up with you.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
Until the vaccinations are sufficiently widespread to take a bite out of R, any release of lockdown will bring us back over 1.
However, vaccination of the vulnerable categories can massively reduce death and hospitalisation. The problem is that in the case of hospitalisation, this requires a much wider cohort.
So you need to vaccinate a considerable proportion of the population before you can turn COVID into a "flu level" illness.
Hence the talk of going to a rapid 1st jab for everyone over 40.
I think 1st jabs are going to be very important.
Prior to my first jab I'm not going anywhere I don't need to.
10 days after that first jab and it's PARTY time...
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
On topic surely the point is that Facebook make money out of their users sharing news content. Someone sharing a link or posting a news story from a media outlet isn't just that, it's Facebook capturing the data and activity of that user and the links/stories they are posting and using its jiggery-pokery algorithms to package-up saleable information about that user - which will include determinations about their opinions/political bent etc etc concluded from the links/stories.
Facebook are therefore making cash not directly from the news stories etc but from the inferences they make on their platform. It's only right the authors of such material get recompensed if Facebook are leveraging the information? Facebook are getting a free ride.
Sites like PB are merely sharing and distributing. Hopefully PB doesn't capture the metadata of what we post to sell-on to companies interested in selling us widgets or recruiting us to their cause and in the process making stacks of cash?
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I can see Labour getting to a point post-Covid where it is again bobbing round 33-34%, well behind the Conservatives, with Starmer's ratings drifting down a few points each month until it is clear, absent a miracle, he can't win.
What, then, Labour?
Labour risks being the Woolworths of political parties. Residual fondness for it as an idea, but nobody wants to go there.....
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
There’s definitely a dose of inflation coming down the line, as we likely get a very sharp recovery from the recession.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
The very loud Labour must have a female leader lot when Corbyn was leader brigade suddenly realised that Labour having a female leader was secondary to it having a right wing one.
Funnily enough a similar thing happened with the EU membership being the most important thing ever.
Members opinion was occasionally very important as well, usually just on EU membership and just how they had originally voted and not their up to date thoughts.
I've learnt it is best to assume everything the Labour right say is purely a cynical lie to gain power within the Labour party and then things like this are more matter of fact than matter of disappointment.
Edit: I remember people arguing with me suggesting Labour even have a Black or mixed race man as leader such would the crime be to select another man as leader...
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
It ends when they can stop printing money.
They will stop printing money when they no longer need to do so.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
There’s definitely a dose of inflation coming down the line, as we likely get a very sharp recovery from the recession.
Indeed.
Right now, I'll take that. Inflation isn't nice, but neither is deflation. So long as the inflation isn't too much its the least worst evil available.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
@HYUFD You've picked the best poll for Labour there, one that could well be an outlier.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate in 2010 against his brother David who was the candidate of the Labour right in the final round, Starmer in 2019 is the first candidate from the Labour right to win a contested Labour leadership election since Blair in 1994 (Brown being unopposed in 2007)
Arguably Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate. Ed was the most left wing option that could beat David. If Corbyn had been challenged by McDonnell with a more right leaning platform than Corbyn it wouldn't make McDonnell a member of the Labour right.
He was more left wing than David but that doesn't make him left (I mean it could) but TBH my feeling was always that Ed's cabinet drove him rightwards, he said after 2017 he should have gone for a manifesto like that, the reason he didn't go with he beliefs was his right wing cabinet.
@Yorkcity Happy with Johnson winning, no. Happy enough with the people kicking me to lose, yes.
Do you agree that the people Starmer needs to win over to become PM, mostly voted for the Conservatives (and SNP) in 2019?
To varying degrees he needs people who voted Conservative in 2019, SNP in 2019 and Labour in either 2017 and/or 2019. His approach so far seems to have pissed off the latter group without winning much of the former groups.
I can't see Labour winning the next election short of Black Wednesday, or several days worth maybe.... for a future election Labour win the most realistic scenario IMO short of Black Wednesday is either 2017+ or pretty much 2017 but with a less popular Conservative party or a split right wing vote.
For how many more (lost) general election cycles are you going to cling to the fantasy of GE2017?
The right of Labour base a large part of their argument (to run the party because they are more electable) around 1983 and 1997. Markus Rashford has been born and turned into a superstar since the latter, Ronaldo and Messi have been born and become the worlds best football players living full football careers since the latter (along with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union and the creation of some new European countries) 2017 seems a hell of a lot more relevant than dates in the distant past.
So if your argument is nobody in the Labour party should be able to claim that they are more electable based on past events then I am okay with that, it is usually a crutch the right goes to to claim electability based on the past.
If you want to argue that 2017 should be ignored by the left but the right should get to use events from decades ago then I am afraid that is bias on your part.
If your argument is that I have been spreading falsehoods regarding the 2017 election I am happy to be corrected.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't ignore the facts, which are your current coalition is too narrow to win. I'm not sure why a list of football players is supposed to convince me otherwise.
If you want to see the blind alley where trying GE2017 redux leads then I suggest you look at GE2019.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Really? I never had you down as a fan of either May or Thatcher
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
It ends when they can stop printing money.
They will stop printing money when they no longer need to do so.
Its a Catch 22.
As long rates increase, so will the cost of borrowing, and hence the structural deficit. Which only leads to more borrowing at.....er......higher rates.
Index linked bond borrowing costs will also increase as inflation resurfaces.
So I hope Sunak has got most of his borrowing out of the way.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
HMRC have always regarded the way Uber treated VAT as wrong but as (if you read the thread) Uber did everything it could to keep prices low Uber used all the tricks it could find to try and avoid paying VAT. Which means there is a court case of £1-5bn of VAT that HMRC are very likely to win.
But that didn't matter to Uber as how can you claim money from a none UK company that will just up sticks and close if they can't pay the final bill.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
Thanks - interesting thread - which links to this article which explains Uber's problems:
I summarise the three choices Labour have below - route 2 are currently fooling themselves that Starmer in trying to pursue route 3 is actually pursuing route 1.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about which route this report concludes is the only way Labour return to Government.
"The analysis conducted by Datapraxis identified three options, summarised as:
1. A strategy which prioritises almost exclusively winning back lost Leave voters and “Red Wall” seats by combining left economic policies with strong emphasis on controls on immigration and less social liberalism. This would assume the current voter coalition is retained which is a risky assumption to make. It could yield a higher vote share than in 2019, but would likely lead to losing a significant number of socially liberal voters to the Greens, the Lib Dems and/or the Nationalists, leaving Labour well below its 2017 vote share, with lots of younger voters abstaining too.
2. A strategy which combines a move to the centre on economic issues with mild social liberalism tempered by a “tough-on-crime” posture could also deliver a better result than 2019, but would likely lead to the loss of some left-wing and younger voters to the Greens, Liberal Democrats, nationalists or abstention, without making any significant advances among socially conservative Brexit swing voters. Again, this could improve on the 2019 vote share but remain below that of 2017.
3. More difficult to execute than either of these approaches, but more likely to attract a coalition of voters broad enough to return Labour to government, would be a strategy that builds greater public support for a big change economic agenda, that is seen as credible and morally essential, rooted in people’s real lives and communities. This economic agenda would need to sit alongside a robust story of community and national pride, while bridging social and cultural divisions. The message of change would aim to enthuse and mobilise existing support and younger voters while at the same time being grounded in community, place and family, to speak to former “leave-minded” Labour voters. The bridging approach across divides would need to neutralise cultural and social tensions. Such a strategy could achieve more than 40% vote share, but would require an exceptional leadership team able to navigate building and winning trust of this very diverse voter coalition."
There's always the unspeakable clause 4:
4. Find ourselves another Tony Blair......
What it doesn't say is that route 1 would yield more seats than route 2 even if both didn't return them to Government.
I'd say route 1 would get them up to 260-270 seats, on maybe a very efficient 35-36% of the vote, route 2 is a hiding to nothing, probably 34-35% of the vote but with only 230-240 seats - max, and route 3 can get them to 300-320 seats on 40-42% of the vote.
They need a 21st Century "Blair" for the 350-380 seats, Scotland, and lots of votes from older core Conservative groups too.
Labour doesn't need to do a Blair to get into Government.
Route 1 would likely give Starmer enough to become PM with SNP and LD support
The experience of minority governments is generally not a happy one - and they are short-lived.
Yes, they could knockout a Tory PM under route 1 but they wouldn't be able to do much of what they wanted to, and it wouldn't be very resilient or robust as the 1920s showed.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
It ends when they can stop printing money.
They will stop printing money when they no longer need to do so.
Its a Catch 22.
Apropos of nowt. Catch 22 was originally Catch 18. Then 11, 17 and 14 before becoming 22.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
A problem for Labour, perhaps. Not for the rest of the country.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
What huge borrowing - it's just a balance sheet item on the Bank of England's books?
Until the vaccinations are sufficiently widespread to take a bite out of R, any release of lockdown will bring us back over 1.
However, vaccination of the vulnerable categories can massively reduce death and hospitalisation. The problem is that in the case of hospitalisation, this requires a much wider cohort.
So you need to vaccinate a considerable proportion of the population before you can turn COVID into a "flu level" illness.
Hence the talk of going to a rapid 1st jab for everyone over 40.
I think 1st jabs are going to be very important.
Prior to my first jab I'm not going anywhere I don't need to.
10 days after that first jab and it's PARTY time...
Those who live in the real world might be interesting in reading Labour's own report on its GE2019 defeat; in particular how to build a winning coalition for the future:
I summarise the three choices Labour have below - route 2 are currently fooling themselves that Starmer in trying to pursue route 3 is actually pursuing route 1.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about which route this report concludes is the only way Labour return to Government.
"The analysis conducted by Datapraxis identified three options, summarised as:
1. A strategy which prioritises almost exclusively winning back lost Leave voters and “Red Wall” seats by combining left economic policies with strong emphasis on controls on immigration and less social liberalism. This would assume the current voter coalition is retained which is a risky assumption to make. It could yield a higher vote share than in 2019, but would likely lead to losing a significant number of socially liberal voters to the Greens, the Lib Dems and/or the Nationalists, leaving Labour well below its 2017 vote share, with lots of younger voters abstaining too.
2. A strategy which combines a move to the centre on economic issues with mild social liberalism tempered by a “tough-on-crime” posture could also deliver a better result than 2019, but would likely lead to the loss of some left-wing and younger voters to the Greens, Liberal Democrats, nationalists or abstention, without making any significant advances among socially conservative Brexit swing voters. Again, this could improve on the 2019 vote share but remain below that of 2017.
3. More difficult to execute than either of these approaches, but more likely to attract a coalition of voters broad enough to return Labour to government, would be a strategy that builds greater public support for a big change economic agenda, that is seen as credible and morally essential, rooted in people’s real lives and communities. This economic agenda would need to sit alongside a robust story of community and national pride, while bridging social and cultural divisions. The message of change would aim to enthuse and mobilise existing support and younger voters while at the same time being grounded in community, place and family, to speak to former “leave-minded” Labour voters. The bridging approach across divides would need to neutralise cultural and social tensions. Such a strategy could achieve more than 40% vote share, but would require an exceptional leadership team able to navigate building and winning trust of this very diverse voter coalition."
Labour's was a rubbish report. It missed that (broken record!) CCHQ and Boris systematically looted everything popular from Labour's (and hence Corbyn's) 2017 platform. Boris ran against everything Cameron and May stood for. Boris won on anti-austerity, reversing police cuts, boosting public spending and expanding the NHS. Even free broadband (except Boris was providing the infrastructure free to ISPs).
And that is Starmer's and Labour's problem now and in 2024. Boris shot all their foxes.
Starmer's current tactic, from reopening schools to recovery bonds, is to take an idea already being discussed by Conservatives and advocate doing it slightly quicker or better. Fine for looking clever when Boris picks it up but it is not going to win an election.
You have to expect political parties to strip each others clothes. That's their job, and how they win. If the the Tories have done that in one or two areas to Labour, why the resistance to Labour doing the same to them?
Voters wanted an end to austerity in 2017, yes - and I will say until I'm blue in the face that 2017 was a unique circumstance, and that Labour still lost - but that didn't mean they wanted an end to fiscal sanity.
GE2019 showed that most voters aren't that fussed about a small state, and nor do they want a massive state either - rather, they are interested in a balanced state, and a party who doesn't hate what it stands for.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Johnson has charisma of a particular type - the ability to project a larger than life persona. He entertains, amuses, but most of all he distracts. We get the persona not the person. It's phony yet he's viewed by the unwary and the unperceptive - who are many - as authentic. For example, the "doesn't take himself too seriously" act plays particularly well even though 'himself' is the only thing he takes seriously. It's infuriating really. I hope he comes unstuck but there's no doubting that "Boris" is a powerful brand. It could be fought - and imo beaten - by a different sort of charisma, where the power comes from the focus, the drive, from a self-confidence grounded in principles truly believed and ideas rigorously thought through, a sense that it's the real person being presented, not a showboating, needy comic. Does Keir Starmer have this? I don't want to say no - too depressing an admission and in any case too early - so I'll go with not yet.
I summarise the three choices Labour have below - route 2 are currently fooling themselves that Starmer in trying to pursue route 3 is actually pursuing route 1.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about which route this report concludes is the only way Labour return to Government.
"The analysis conducted by Datapraxis identified three options, summarised as:
1. A strategy which prioritises almost exclusively winning back lost Leave voters and “Red Wall” seats by combining left economic policies with strong emphasis on controls on immigration and less social liberalism. This would assume the current voter coalition is retained which is a risky assumption to make. It could yield a higher vote share than in 2019, but would likely lead to losing a significant number of socially liberal voters to the Greens, the Lib Dems and/or the Nationalists, leaving Labour well below its 2017 vote share, with lots of younger voters abstaining too.
2. A strategy which combines a move to the centre on economic issues with mild social liberalism tempered by a “tough-on-crime” posture could also deliver a better result than 2019, but would likely lead to the loss of some left-wing and younger voters to the Greens, Liberal Democrats, nationalists or abstention, without making any significant advances among socially conservative Brexit swing voters. Again, this could improve on the 2019 vote share but remain below that of 2017.
3. More difficult to execute than either of these approaches, but more likely to attract a coalition of voters broad enough to return Labour to government, would be a strategy that builds greater public support for a big change economic agenda, that is seen as credible and morally essential, rooted in people’s real lives and communities. This economic agenda would need to sit alongside a robust story of community and national pride, while bridging social and cultural divisions. The message of change would aim to enthuse and mobilise existing support and younger voters while at the same time being grounded in community, place and family, to speak to former “leave-minded” Labour voters. The bridging approach across divides would need to neutralise cultural and social tensions. Such a strategy could achieve more than 40% vote share, but would require an exceptional leadership team able to navigate building and winning trust of this very diverse voter coalition."
There's always the unspeakable clause 4:
4. Find ourselves another Tony Blair......
What it doesn't say is that route 1 would yield more seats than route 2 even if both didn't return them to Government.
I'd say route 1 would get them up to 260-270 seats, on maybe a very efficient 35-36% of the vote, route 2 is a hiding to nothing, probably 34-35% of the vote but with only 230-240 seats - max, and route 3 can get them to 300-320 seats on 40-42% of the vote.
They need a 21st Century "Blair" for the 350-380 seats, Scotland, and lots of votes from older core Conservative groups too.
Labour doesn't need to do a Blair to get into Government.
Route 1 would likely give Starmer enough to become PM with SNP and LD support
The experience of minority governments is generally not a happy one - and they are short-lived.
Yes, they could knockout a Tory PM under route 1 but they wouldn't be able to do much of what they wanted to, and it wouldn't be very resilient or robust as the 1920s showed.
Depends if they then win a majority at the subsequent election or not
@HYUFD You've picked the best poll for Labour there, one that could well be an outlier.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate in 2010 against his brother David who was the candidate of the Labour right in the final round, Starmer in 2019 is the first candidate from the Labour right to win a contested Labour leadership election since Blair in 1994 (Brown being unopposed in 2007)
Arguably Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate. Ed was the most left wing option that could beat David. If Corbyn had been challenged by McDonnell with a more right leaning platform than Corbyn it wouldn't make McDonnell a member of the Labour right.
He was more left wing than David but that doesn't make him left (I mean it could) but TBH my feeling was always that Ed's cabinet drove him rightwards, he said after 2017 he should have gone for a manifesto like that, the reason he didn't go with he beliefs was his right wing cabinet.
@Yorkcity Happy with Johnson winning, no. Happy enough with the people kicking me to lose, yes.
Do you agree that the people Starmer needs to win over to become PM, mostly voted for the Conservatives (and SNP) in 2019?
To varying degrees he needs people who voted Conservative in 2019, SNP in 2019 and Labour in either 2017 and/or 2019. His approach so far seems to have pissed off the latter group without winning much of the former groups.
I can't see Labour winning the next election short of Black Wednesday, or several days worth maybe.... for a future election Labour win the most realistic scenario IMO short of Black Wednesday is either 2017+ or pretty much 2017 but with a less popular Conservative party or a split right wing vote.
For how many more (lost) general election cycles are you going to cling to the fantasy of GE2017?
The right of Labour base a large part of their argument (to run the party because they are more electable) around 1983 and 1997. Markus Rashford has been born and turned into a superstar since the latter, Ronaldo and Messi have been born and become the worlds best football players living full football careers since the latter (along with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union and the creation of some new European countries) 2017 seems a hell of a lot more relevant than dates in the distant past.
So if your argument is nobody in the Labour party should be able to claim that they are more electable based on past events then I am okay with that, it is usually a crutch the right goes to to claim electability based on the past.
If you want to argue that 2017 should be ignored by the left but the right should get to use events from decades ago then I am afraid that is bias on your part.
If your argument is that I have been spreading falsehoods regarding the 2017 election I am happy to be corrected.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't ignore the facts, which are your current coalition is too narrow to win. I'm not sure why a list of football players is supposed to convince me otherwise.
If you want to see the blind alley where trying GE2017 redux leads then I suggest you look at GE2019.
The list of football players helps emphasise the passage of time, but if you aren't happy to use '97 or '83 as evidence of anything to prove your point then you agree with me so don't worry about it.
The 2017 coalition was too narrow to win, I have never claimed it did win, with a less enthused (Brexit) Conservative vote it could win but it didn't in 2017.
My problem is with exploring narrower coalitions than 2017. Look if Starmer can somehow win millions of Conservative votes then he can happily tell millions of Labour voters to f off because they are extremists or various other vices and he doesn't want their votes. Ignoring my political views in terms of election winning that is a no brainer.
Short of Black Wednesday though that isn't happening, Starmer pissing off Labour voters whilst winning over very few Tories but being better liked by Lib Dems than Labour isn't even the Labour 2017 coalition which already lost let alone something capable of beating an enthused Conservative vote.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Pidcock was the first Labour candidate to lose Durham NW ever, not much appeal there
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I once did a VAT Tribunal about this which turned upon services in a brothel. The supply of rooms, towels (?) and condoms was by the establishment and VATable. The services offered by the girls were not as they were not VAT registered. Of course if the girls were regarded as employees the result would have come out differently.
Those who live in the real world might be interesting in reading Labour's own report on its GE2019 defeat; in particular how to build a winning coalition for the future:
I summarise the three choices Labour have below - route 2 are currently fooling themselves that Starmer in trying to pursue route 3 is actually pursuing route 1.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about which route this report concludes is the only way Labour return to Government.
"The analysis conducted by Datapraxis identified three options, summarised as:
1. A strategy which prioritises almost exclusively winning back lost Leave voters and “Red Wall” seats by combining left economic policies with strong emphasis on controls on immigration and less social liberalism. This would assume the current voter coalition is retained which is a risky assumption to make. It could yield a higher vote share than in 2019, but would likely lead to losing a significant number of socially liberal voters to the Greens, the Lib Dems and/or the Nationalists, leaving Labour well below its 2017 vote share, with lots of younger voters abstaining too.
2. A strategy which combines a move to the centre on economic issues with mild social liberalism tempered by a “tough-on-crime” posture could also deliver a better result than 2019, but would likely lead to the loss of some left-wing and younger voters to the Greens, Liberal Democrats, nationalists or abstention, without making any significant advances among socially conservative Brexit swing voters. Again, this could improve on the 2019 vote share but remain below that of 2017.
3. More difficult to execute than either of these approaches, but more likely to attract a coalition of voters broad enough to return Labour to government, would be a strategy that builds greater public support for a big change economic agenda, that is seen as credible and morally essential, rooted in people’s real lives and communities. This economic agenda would need to sit alongside a robust story of community and national pride, while bridging social and cultural divisions. The message of change would aim to enthuse and mobilise existing support and younger voters while at the same time being grounded in community, place and family, to speak to former “leave-minded” Labour voters. The bridging approach across divides would need to neutralise cultural and social tensions. Such a strategy could achieve more than 40% vote share, but would require an exceptional leadership team able to navigate building and winning trust of this very diverse voter coalition."
Labour's was a rubbish report. It missed that (broken record!) CCHQ and Boris systematically looted everything popular from Labour's (and hence Corbyn's) 2017 platform. Boris ran against everything Cameron and May stood for. Boris won on anti-austerity, reversing police cuts, boosting public spending and expanding the NHS. Even free broadband (except Boris was providing the infrastructure free to ISPs).
And that is Starmer's and Labour's problem now and in 2024. Boris shot all their foxes.
Starmer's current tactic, from reopening schools to recovery bonds, is to take an idea already being discussed by Conservatives and advocate doing it slightly quicker or better. Fine for looking clever when Boris picks it up but it is not going to win an election.
You have to expect political parties to strip each others clothes. That's their job, and how they win. If the the Tories have done that in one or two areas to Labour, why the resistance to Labour doing the same to them?
Voters wanted an end to austerity in 2017, yes - and I will say until I'm blue in the face that 2017 was a unique circumstance, and that Labour still lost - but that didn't mean they wanted an end to fiscal sanity.
GE2019 showed that most voters aren't that fussed about a small state, and nor do they want a massive state either - rather, they are interested in a balanced state, and a party who doesn't hate what it stands for.
Any policy the Tories have had would become untouchable to Labour - in perpetuity. Because...The Tories. It can never be admitted they were right. On anything.
@HYUFD You've picked the best poll for Labour there, one that could well be an outlier.
In fairness I like an outlier poll as well but it is the one that has Starmer's Labour on the same score as 2019 Labour and many points behind 2017 Labour.
Ed himself is left of the Blairites (probably somewhere in the centre of Labour party IMO) but he was driven by the right wing ghouls filling his cabinet so the end result was not a Labour left led party in GE 2015.
Ed Miliband was the leftwing candidate in 2010 against his brother David who was the candidate of the Labour right in the final round, Starmer in 2019 is the first candidate from the Labour right to win a contested Labour leadership election since Blair in 1994 (Brown being unopposed in 2007)
Arguably Diane Abbot was the left wing candidate. Ed was the most left wing option that could beat David. If Corbyn had been challenged by McDonnell with a more right leaning platform than Corbyn it wouldn't make McDonnell a member of the Labour right.
He was more left wing than David but that doesn't make him left (I mean it could) but TBH my feeling was always that Ed's cabinet drove him rightwards, he said after 2017 he should have gone for a manifesto like that, the reason he didn't go with he beliefs was his right wing cabinet.
@Yorkcity Happy with Johnson winning, no. Happy enough with the people kicking me to lose, yes.
Do you agree that the people Starmer needs to win over to become PM, mostly voted for the Conservatives (and SNP) in 2019?
To varying degrees he needs people who voted Conservative in 2019, SNP in 2019 and Labour in either 2017 and/or 2019. His approach so far seems to have pissed off the latter group without winning much of the former groups.
I can't see Labour winning the next election short of Black Wednesday, or several days worth maybe.... for a future election Labour win the most realistic scenario IMO short of Black Wednesday is either 2017+ or pretty much 2017 but with a less popular Conservative party or a split right wing vote.
For how many more (lost) general election cycles are you going to cling to the fantasy of GE2017?
The right of Labour base a large part of their argument (to run the party because they are more electable) around 1983 and 1997. Markus Rashford has been born and turned into a superstar since the latter, Ronaldo and Messi have been born and become the worlds best football players living full football careers since the latter (along with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union and the creation of some new European countries) 2017 seems a hell of a lot more relevant than dates in the distant past.
So if your argument is nobody in the Labour party should be able to claim that they are more electable based on past events then I am okay with that, it is usually a crutch the right goes to to claim electability based on the past.
If you want to argue that 2017 should be ignored by the left but the right should get to use events from decades ago then I am afraid that is bias on your part.
If your argument is that I have been spreading falsehoods regarding the 2017 election I am happy to be corrected.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't ignore the facts, which are your current coalition is too narrow to win. I'm not sure why a list of football players is supposed to convince me otherwise.
If you want to see the blind alley where trying GE2017 redux leads then I suggest you look at GE2019.
The list of football players helps emphasise the passage of time, but if you aren't happy to use '97 or '83 as evidence of anything to prove your point then you agree with me so don't worry about it.
The 2017 coalition was too narrow to win, I have never claimed it did win, with a less enthused (Brexit) Conservative vote it could win but it didn't in 2017.
My problem is with exploring narrower coalitions than 2017. Look if Starmer can somehow win millions of Conservative votes then he can happily tell millions of Labour voters to f off because they are extremists or various other vices and he doesn't want their votes. Ignoring my political views in terms of election winning that is a no brainer.
Short of Black Wednesday though that isn't happening, Starmer pissing off Labour voters whilst winning over very few Tories but being better liked by Lib Dems than Labour isn't even the Labour 2017 coalition which already lost let alone something capable of beating an enthused Conservative vote.
Read route 3 of the report I posted. He needs both you *and* soft Tories to win, and it can be done.
It's an AND and not an EITHER/OR choice, and you need to be self-reflective enough to see this.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Pidcock was the first Labour candidate to lose Durham NW ever, not much appeal there
I honestly don’t know what people see in her. She struck me as the worst type of student politician - nasty, divisive, hypocritical, pompous and not especially bright.
She was also bone idle. Who could forget her decision to jet off to Italy on holiday while Parliament was in session, thus missing all the votes on universal credit where a government win wasn’t guaranteed.
Hilary Armstrong incidentally, who as a former Chief Whip and MP for Durham NW should know, thought her neglect of her seat was the real reason why she lost.
On topic surely the point is that Facebook make money out of their users sharing news content. Someone sharing a link or posting a news story from a media outlet isn't just that, it's Facebook capturing the data and activity of that user and the links/stories they are posting and using its jiggery-pokery algorithms to package-up saleable information about that user - which will include determinations about their opinions/political bent etc etc concluded from the links/stories.
Facebook are therefore making cash not directly from the news stories etc but from the inferences they make on their platform. It's only right the authors of such material get recompensed if Facebook are leveraging the information? Facebook are getting a free ride.
Sites like PB are merely sharing and distributing. Hopefully PB doesn't capture the metadata of what we post to sell-on to companies interested in selling us widgets or recruiting us to their cause and in the process making stacks of cash?
Or have I got this wrong?
The point being that the legislation does not discriminate between sites that are leveraging data and those that are not. All will be affected by this including PB if these laws spread to other jurisdictions.
And the alternative to FB making money from the data should be that the media companies who are benefitting from being linked to from FB should be paying them for the service. The media companies want both the service of having traffic sent in their direction and to be paid for being given that service as well.
I can see Labour getting to a point post-Covid where it is again bobbing round 33-34%, well behind the Conservatives, with Starmer's ratings drifting down a few points each month until it is clear, absent a miracle, he can't win.
What, then, Labour?
Labour risks being the Woolworths of political parties. Residual fondness for it as an idea, but nobody wants to go there.....
Interesting point. For instance many people in Scotland still, I think, harbour a relatively warm feeling for Labour. They just seem irrelevant in the current political circumstances. Hence their ratings up here.
Starmer needs to present himself as the answer to something. But what, exactly, could that be? As we come out of the pandemic, a premium will be put on economic credibility. It'll be all about jobs. And that preoccupation rarely benefits Labour.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
On the plus side if the left had won and was doing as badly as Starmer the rubbish about being 15-20 points ahead would still be being pedalled (by the right seriously rather than the left sardonically)
I figure this way (from a left POV) gives the right a chance to prove all the rubbish they claimed when Corbyn was leader. When they fail then Labours next left wing leader will be able to far more easily dismiss nonsense about being 15-20 points ahead by pointing to the very recent right wing leader being behind.
But yeah Pidcock would have been a more challenging opponent for Starmer, still think he might have won, the rights lines about electability cut through to many Corbyn turned Starmer voters.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
What huge borrowing - it's just a balance sheet item on the Bank of England's books?
Makes you wonder why governments ever even try to balance the books, then.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I once did a VAT Tribunal about this which turned upon services in a brothel. The supply of rooms, towels (?) and condoms was by the establishment and VATable. The services offered by the girls were not as they were not VAT registered. Of course if the girls were regarded as employees the result would have come out differently.
My firm (well, strictly speaking one of the firms my firm swallowed up) acted for Stringfellows in one of the first gig economy cases brought by one of their lap dancers.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
She led him by 5 points in Sep 16, and trailed by 16 a year later. So crossover at some point inbetween. I think it is fair to say that her lack of charisma during the campaign was a factor in her losing the Conservatives majority, hence my point about the more charismatic candidate outdoing their party's polling rather than winning the election
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
That's going to be a chunky bill for Uber between, ENI, NI, PAYE and VAT plus claims for NMW and holiday pay. They won't even be able to offset any CT because they never seem to make a profit. Must be a real question mark as to whether they survive this.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Being a more compelling speaker is not the be all and end all. Boris is a chaotic, confusing but generally compelling speaker, but his style is only part of why those who like him like him as they do. Rightly or not they like what they think he is selling. I'm not sure Pidcock, however compelling, had something people wanted to buy.
I hope Keir can grab some positive bzz - he's relatively boring, but he's not as boring a speaker as people say either.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
What huge borrowing - it's just a balance sheet item on the Bank of England's books?
Makes you wonder why governments ever even try to balance the books, then.
They usually don’t. It’s a good election line though.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
It's always been fine if they don't want to do standard royal 'work', it's just a matter of any associated royal 'benefits' should not be accrued either. Reliance on personal and royal wealth won't be a burden, as you say.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
From the government's point of view, the VAT is the much bigger issue.
Uber were trying to claim that most of the money paid to Uber was actually being paid to the driver - when Uber are setting the fare, the driver's payment and their own commission.
If the payment was from the customer to the driver, who was then billed by Uber for running a booking engine, then the driver would be self-employed and VAT not payable on the full fare.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
That's going to be a chunky bill for Uber between, ENI, NI, PAYE and VAT plus claims for NMW and holiday pay. They won't even be able to offset any CT because they never seem to make a profit. Must be a real question mark as to whether they survive this.
POUWAS.
The technology is decent, but surely a non-dodgy business will step into the void if Uber do die.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I once did a VAT Tribunal about this which turned upon services in a brothel. The supply of rooms, towels (?) and condoms was by the establishment and VATable. The services offered by the girls were not as they were not VAT registered. Of course if the girls were regarded as employees the result would have come out differently.
My firm (well, strictly speaking one of the firms my firm swallowed up) acted for Stringfellows in one of the first gig economy cases brought by one of their lap dancers.
We spent a fair bit of time on that case and also on cases involving an institution called Spearmint Rhino. They were slightly more colourful than your average VAT case.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
And before someone says May didn't win it either, she was still closer to winning it outright than anyone else and ended up in power regardless.
On topic surely the point is that Facebook make money out of their users sharing news content. Someone sharing a link or posting a news story from a media outlet isn't just that, it's Facebook capturing the data and activity of that user and the links/stories they are posting and using its jiggery-pokery algorithms to package-up saleable information about that user - which will include determinations about their opinions/political bent etc etc concluded from the links/stories.
Facebook are therefore making cash not directly from the news stories etc but from the inferences they make on their platform. It's only right the authors of such material get recompensed if Facebook are leveraging the information? Facebook are getting a free ride.
Sites like PB are merely sharing and distributing. Hopefully PB doesn't capture the metadata of what we post to sell-on to companies interested in selling us widgets or recruiting us to their cause and in the process making stacks of cash?
Or have I got this wrong?
The point being that the legislation does not discriminate between sites that are leveraging data and those that are not. All will be affected by this including PB if these laws spread to other jurisdictions.
And the alternative to FB making money from the data should be that the media companies who are benefitting from being linked to from FB should be paying them for the service. The media companies want both the service of having traffic sent in their direction and to be paid for being given that service as well.
Also, on the basis of the Australian government's logic, if the BBC runs an item on the Six O'Clock News based on an exclusive in The Times, presumably the Beeb would have to pay The Times for the privilege.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I once did a VAT Tribunal about this which turned upon services in a brothel. The supply of rooms, towels (?) and condoms was by the establishment and VATable. The services offered by the girls were not as they were not VAT registered. Of course if the girls were regarded as employees the result would have come out differently.
employees or workers? There is a difference there but I'm not 100% sure whether workers may give you a get out on the VAT
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
Well that is what I said in the post you replied to!
"Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them"
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
I believe we're going to have a "Roaring Twenties" after this.
But not all sectors are the same and Construction/DIY/renovations etc seems to have done far, far better out of the pandemic than eg travel, tourism and hospitality.
Hence why I suggested eg 2 year tax relief on those sectors devastated. Your business might be doing well but speak to someone else in another sector and they're struggling to keep their heads above water.
The Chancellor shouldn't tax for 2 years IMO those who are really struggling, while letting taxes continue as normal on normal sectors. If you're doing really well then I'm sure you'd take the opportunity to eg have some taxfree meals out which will allow the likes of Ms Cyclefree Jr to catch back up with you.
My point is that those involved in Construction of which there are many millions are earning plenty at the moment and have nothing to spend their money on. Im sure that there is a lot of personal debt reduction going on. However when the shackles are released they will spend big time.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Johnson has charisma of a particular type - the ability to project a larger than life persona. He entertains, amuses, but most of all he distracts. We get the persona not the person. It's phony yet he's viewed by the unwary and the unperceptive - who are many - as authentic. For example, the "doesn't take himself too seriously" act plays particularly well even though 'himself' is the only thing he takes seriously. It's infuriating really. I hope he comes unstuck but there's no doubting that "Boris" is a powerful brand. It could be fought - and imo beaten - by a different sort of charisma, where the power comes from the focus, the drive, from a self-confidence grounded in principles truly believed and ideas rigorously thought through, a sense that it's the real person being presented, not a showboating, needy comic. Does Keir Starmer have this? I don't want to say no - too depressing an admission and in any case too early - so I'll go with not yet.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
And before someone says May didn't win it either, she was still closer to winning it outright than anyone else and ended up in power regardless.
Indeed, always amuses me when I have to point out to Corbynites that their boy finished 55 seats behind Mrs May.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Pidcock was the first Labour candidate to lose Durham NW ever, not much appeal there
I honestly don’t know what people see in her. She struck me as the worst type of student politician - nasty, divisive, hypocritical, pompous and not especially bright.
She was also bone idle. Who could forget her decision to jet off to Italy on holiday while Parliament was in session, thus missing all the votes on universal credit where a government win wasn’t guaranteed.
Hilary Armstrong incidentally, who as a former Chief Whip and MP for Durham NW should know, thought her neglect of her seat was the real reason why she lost.
She was unliked and lazy, although it was a surprise that she lost the seat as most people did think even that wouldn't have been enough.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
Well that is what I said in the post you replied to!
"Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them"
I was referring to this bit earlier on where you said
'Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls).'
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
I believe we're going to have a "Roaring Twenties" after this.
But not all sectors are the same and Construction/DIY/renovations etc seems to have done far, far better out of the pandemic than eg travel, tourism and hospitality.
Hence why I suggested eg 2 year tax relief on those sectors devastated. Your business might be doing well but speak to someone else in another sector and they're struggling to keep their heads above water.
The Chancellor shouldn't tax for 2 years IMO those who are really struggling, while letting taxes continue as normal on normal sectors. If you're doing really well then I'm sure you'd take the opportunity to eg have some taxfree meals out which will allow the likes of Ms Cyclefree Jr to catch back up with you.
My point is that those involved in Construction of which there are many millions are earning plenty at the moment and have nothing to spend their money on. Im sure that there is a lot of personal debt reduction going on. However when the shackles are released they will spend big time.
Which is what the economy desperately needs. Plus why doom mongerers like contrarian are wrong.
Imagine being able to walk into your local newsagent, picking up a copy of every magazine and newspaper, and walking out the door without paying for any of them. Thats what the internet is like as far as news is concerned.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
That's going to be a chunky bill for Uber between, ENI, NI, PAYE and VAT plus claims for NMW and holiday pay. They won't even be able to offset any CT because they never seem to make a profit. Must be a real question mark as to whether they survive this.
POUWAS.
The technology is decent, but surely a non-dodgy business will step into the void if Uber do die.
There are plenty of existing businesses. The only thing Uber offered me as a traveller was not having to identify the best local taxi / app firm before arriving in that city.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
That's going to be a chunky bill for Uber between, ENI, NI, PAYE and VAT plus claims for NMW and holiday pay. They won't even be able to offset any CT because they never seem to make a profit. Must be a real question mark as to whether they survive this.
As I said the other day when the discussion was on UBI, if a firm cannot operate on a model that pays its employees a living wage and pays all the taxes and other liabilities it is due to pay then it is not a viable business and should not be propped up by the taxpayer.
It is different if it is a business operating on a viable model that then gets into difficulties because of the economic climate or other issues. Then I see the benefit of at least considering tax payer support in the short term as is the current case with the pandemic relief. But either Uber is a viable business paying its employees and taxes or it is not. If it is not then it deserves to fail.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
I'm surprised by the existing VAT treatment, and in particular the inference that booking an Uber does not involve a supply of services from Uber to the person booking the ride, even if it ALSO (before today) involved the supply of services by the driver.
I once did a VAT Tribunal about this which turned upon services in a brothel. The supply of rooms, towels (?) and condoms was by the establishment and VATable. The services offered by the girls were not as they were not VAT registered. Of course if the girls were regarded as employees the result would have come out differently.
employees or workers? There is a difference there but I'm not 100% sure whether workers may give you a get out on the VAT
I don't think workers would get you out because they still providing the service on behalf of someone else. In this case the girls were self employed and did not account for their takings in any way to the establishment. Allegedly.
Imagine being able to walk into your local newsagent, picking up a copy of every magazine and newspaper, and walking out the door without paying for any of them. Thats what the internet is like as far as news is concerned.
Except most of the people providing it to us allow us to take it without paying for it, whereas your newsagent is not.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Being a more compelling speaker is not the be all and end all. Boris is a chaotic, confusing but generally compelling speaker, but his style is only part of why those who like him like him as they do. Rightly or not they like what they think he is selling. I'm not sure Pidcock, however compelling, had something people wanted to buy.
I hope Keir can grab some positive bzz - he's relatively boring, but he's not as boring a speaker as people say either.
His problem is not that he's a boring speaker; it's that he appears to be a boring thinker.
Imagine being able to walk into your local newsagent, picking up a copy of every magazine and newspaper, and walking out the door without paying for any of them. Thats what the internet is like as far as news is concerned.
No it isn't. The papers are perfectly able to firewall their product so people have to pay. If they chose not to then that is their problem.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
I keep banging on about it, but I think a LotO needs to have the charisma to sell their vision to the public at Election time better than the sitting PM does theirs, and I can't see Sir Keir being able to manage it.
Not always, see 1945 when Attlee won, 1970 when Heath won and 1992 when Major won despite being the less charismatic leaders.
See also France in 2012 when Hollande beat Sarkozy despite being the duller of the 2 and 2020 in the US when Biden won despite being less charismatic than Trump.
Charisma normally wins but if the government and incumbent leader is unpopular, serious but dull can beat charismatic
For starters, Major was the incumbent, not LotO.
The world has moved on since the 40s and 70s. It is probably a more shallow, celebrity obsessed place, for better or worse.
Biden beat Trump but not by as much as the polls predicted. Biden won by 4.4% and, according to Wiki, the polls for the last year of the race had him 7.9% in front. So, yes, of course, charisma/personality is not the only thing, my point really is that it is it is a kind of hidden bonus that VI/Leader ratings don't pick up on. There is probably a % boost, maybe 10% extra on their party's VI polling, that the more charismatic candidate adds to their side when votes are cast.
Major was but Attlee wasn't in 1945, nor was Heath in 1970 and nor was Hollande in France in 2012 nor indeed was Biden in the US last year.
I agree charisma helped Trump close the gap in 2020, as it did for Sarkozy in France in 2012 but Biden and Hollande still narrowly beat them
Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them
Did Mrs May have more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017?
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
No she didn’t, that’s the point. Jezza had more charisma than May, and so when it came to the campaign, did much better than expected.
So the candidate with the most charisma didn't win the election?
Well that is what I said in the post you replied to!
"Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them"
I was referring to this bit earlier on where you said
'Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls).'
Well actually, if we are rigidily sticking to IPSOS-MORI polls, in the last one before the 2017 GE May led Corbyn 37-32 in Personality, so I was right in what I said. But it was about 9 months before the GE, had they polled that question closer to the election ,maybe, probably the poll findings would be different
But I think it is pretty fair to say Corbyn was the more charismatic of the two during the campaign, and that, despite losing, him being the more charismatic candidate enabled him to get a better result then the polls had predicted, which is what I think is useful to know.
(and the part you quoted was from the post you replied to, as I said!)
Bye bye Harry you and your money grabbing wife will not be missed.
Its easier for an British person to adapt to the Californian way of life than vice versa. Thats the moral of this story. (I know they live in Canada a lot of the time).
Labour are years and years away from being ready for power again, aren't they?
Maybe I should just shrug and give up, and enjoy the pure blue Toryness.
I just hope future Tory PMs have enough fingers to count the wins out for the cameras outside Downing Street.
In some ways Starmer is a worse leader than Corbyn.
The latter was not a paid up member of the comfortably off middle class public sector/third sector/Education/media cohort that dominate the party.
A labour leader who wants to win would take these folk on. Tell them that they have done relatively OK compared to most through the pandemic and that they cannot expect to be a priority going forward. Indeed, some belt tightening might be in order.
Corbyn actually grasped that in a way Starmer doesn't.
Imagine being able to walk into your local newsagent, picking up a copy of every magazine and newspaper, and walking out the door without paying for any of them. Thats what the internet is like as far as news is concerned.
Except, as (for example) the Times, NYT or Washington Post show, it's not. And even the dead tree press has or had its freesheets.
he also picks up on the fact that everyone being workers means the organisation being paid for the ride isn't a none VAT registered self employed driver but Uber itself (in which case VAT should be being paid on the entire bill).
That's going to be a chunky bill for Uber between, ENI, NI, PAYE and VAT plus claims for NMW and holiday pay. They won't even be able to offset any CT because they never seem to make a profit. Must be a real question mark as to whether they survive this.
As I said the other day when the discussion was on UBI, if a firm cannot operate on a model that pays its employees a living wage and pays all the taxes and other liabilities it is due to pay then it is not a viable business and should not be propped up by the taxpayer.
It is different if it is a business operating on a viable model that then gets into difficulties because of the economic climate or other issues. Then I see the benefit of at least considering tax payer support in the short term as is the current case with the pandemic relief. But either Uber is a viable business paying its employees and taxes or it is not. If it is not then it deserves to fail.
Absolutely. And the number of genuinely self employed small taxi firms and businesses that they have been able to destroy with this illegal business model is a disgrace. Its worse than Amazon (words I never thought I would type).
Governments must try harder to ensure that there is a genuinely level playing field between indigenous businesses and these multinational tech companies (which is getting dangerously near getting back on topic, nice piece by the way).
Bye bye Harry you and your money grabbing wife will not be missed.
Its easier for an British person to adapt to the Californian way of life than vice versa. Thats the moral of this story. (I know they live in Canada a lot of the time).
Thats not the point. They want to have their cake and eat it. They cannot. Good riddance. They have chosen big bucks over Royal duties. Fine but bye bye.
I do think, however, that we will find that far more of the IT payments have spilled into February than usual. Ours certainly did and the government permitted it without penalty. Even allowing for that, however, I very much doubt that there has been a worse context for a budget since at least 2009 when Darling under instructions for his boss tried to pretend that nothing had changed.
I don't think that will be the line this time but surely there has to be some hint as to how these shortfalls are going to be filled in the medium term?
For this year the medium term solution should be "end the pandemic, start the recovery."
No more austere than that.
It needs to be well-steered, well-incentivised private capital leading that recovery.
The Government doesn't have the money.
Tax cuts should be the order of the day. Get money circulating through the economy building up a recovery that can then be taxed in the future.
People have plenty of money at the moment with nothing to spend it on. There is a huge pent up demand.
Some people do. Not all. Some businesses are on their knees. People associated with them are too.
My proposal of a 2 year tax holiday for those who have disproportionately suffered would allow those who have pent up cash and demand to spend with those on their knees and would restore the economy PDQ.
A restored economy would pay its taxes in time.
The economy is mad at the moment, the Construction Industry has never been busier, labour rates are increasing all the time.
We have double the amount of work we had 2 years ago and double the labour. 10 months ago we worried about the future of our business. We are now turning down work.
January/Feburary are normally quite times in Construction.
We permanently advertise on Indeed and get no applications.
Once lockdown is ended the economy will grow massively
fuel price pressures also being signalled on the news this morning.
Wage price pressures + commodity price pressures = Inflation is making a comeback. Long interest rates are already starting to adjust accordingly.
You do NOT want to be borrowing untold billion in government bonds over the next 18 months.
Surely you mean ‘lending’ not ‘borrowing?’ High inflation is good for borrowers, it erodes the real value of their debts.
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
I’m not disagreeing with you there (for once) I’m asking for clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of a taxpayer.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
What huge borrowing - it's just a balance sheet item on the Bank of England's books?
Makes you wonder why governments ever even try to balance the books, then.
I'm feeling very smug now as I said on these very pages earlier this week that the rise correlated exactly with the very cold and snowy weather. My speculation turned out to be right!
Labour are years and years away from being ready for power again, aren't they?
Maybe I should just shrug and give up, and enjoy the pure blue Toryness.
I just hope future Tory PMs have enough fingers to count the wins out for the cameras outside Downing Street.
In some ways Starmer is a worse leader than Corbyn.
The latter was not a paid up member of the comfortably off middle class public sector/third sector/Education/media cohort that dominate the party.
Wasn’t he? A man brought up in a seven bedroom mansion whose only paid employment other than being an MP was as a shouting housing officer to a council he was a councillor on sounds pretty ‘comfortably off middle class public sector’ to me.
The cost in the UK would be a fraction of this - and would provide a large drop in the classroom transmissibility of the virus (whatever that figure might otherwise be). Would do the same for flu and colds next winter, so probably still worth doing then.
Bye bye Harry you and your money grabbing wife will not be missed.
Its easier for an British person to adapt to the Californian way of life than vice versa. Thats the moral of this story. (I know they live in Canada a lot of the time).
Thats not the point. They want to have their cake and eat it. They cannot. Good riddance. They have chosen big bucks over Royal duties. Fine but bye bye.
Please select whether you trust Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer more to do each of the following actions.
If I was Starmer I'd be gutted not to have a large lead on repaying a borrowed £5 against Johnson of all people.
The one that shocked me was Johnson's 18 point lead on "Buy a round for their friends at the pub" - he clearly wins on the conviviality front (fun night out +22) but I'm surprised there's that big a gap on a "trust" issue....
I don't think the "buy a round" replies are motivated by a lack of trust in Sir Keir are they? More that he is just not one of the lads/good fun.
He's a lawyer. He's the unhumorous old git who no-one actually likes who sits at the end of the bar.
Maybe now and then someone buys him a drink because they feel sorry for him. They maybe say a polite word to him to him, but he starts muttering about "British Recovery bonds", and they edge away.
(I'm afraid Labour made the wrong choice -- it is already obvious).
That rather implies they had something better on offer. To be honest I've now forgotten who else was on offer.
The one thing I do remember was that the Labour record of no woman ever beating any man in a leadership election was upheld, although they have a much better record in the deputy-leader role.
It’s even more embarrassing when you remember Starmer was the only man in the leadership race.
I VOTED FOR A WOMAN LEADER
Labour's problem with women was that Laura Pidcock lost her seat. Whatever you think of her politics, she was a more compelling speaker than any of the candidates.
Being a more compelling speaker is not the be all and end all. Boris is a chaotic, confusing but generally compelling speaker, but his style is only part of why those who like him like him as they do. Rightly or not they like what they think he is selling. I'm not sure Pidcock, however compelling, had something people wanted to buy.
I hope Keir can grab some positive bzz - he's relatively boring, but he's not as boring a speaker as people say either.
His problem is not that he's a boring speaker; it's that he appears to be a boring thinker.
I'm amazed people are still talking about Starmer 24 hours later. This must surely be a record. Nevertheless I am firmly of the opinion that he's a dead man walking and, more to the point, he evidently agrees. In the teeth of Boris's breezy optimism he has nothing to offer except increasingly morose petulance and a wistful appreciation that it's all gone horribly wrong.
He won't last until 2024. I'd bet the farm laying him for next PM but I prefer more exciting wagers with faster gratification. He carved his own tombstone with the BLM stunt and it only remains to organise a funeral. The epitaph will be that he hit the ground kneeling.
Labour needs a leader who would cut through the self congratulatory bullsh8t and ask the party why it took a pandemic to reveal what was going on in the sweatshops of Leicester and not their party.
Ask why the party was silent as prolonged school closures saw the gap between middle and working class kids widen to a chasm.
These are the abuses that actually spawned the labour movement, after all. Fighting them was the reason labour came into being.
If they aren't going to fight them, then what is the point? they are heading for extinction.
Comments
But not all sectors are the same and Construction/DIY/renovations etc seems to have done far, far better out of the pandemic than eg travel, tourism and hospitality.
Hence why I suggested eg 2 year tax relief on those sectors devastated. Your business might be doing well but speak to someone else in another sector and they're struggling to keep their heads above water.
The Chancellor shouldn't tax for 2 years IMO those who are really struggling, while letting taxes continue as normal on normal sectors. If you're doing really well then I'm sure you'd take the opportunity to eg have some taxfree meals out which will allow the likes of Ms Cyclefree Jr to catch back up with you.
Prior to my first jab I'm not going anywhere I don't need to.
10 days after that first jab and it's PARTY time...
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1362722258666610691
What has partly enabled Sunak and Johnson (and all Western governments) to defy gravity on funding lockdown is zero short and long interest rates.
That game is ending.
Facebook are therefore making cash not directly from the news stories etc but from the inferences they make on their platform. It's only right the authors of such material get recompensed if Facebook are leveraging the information? Facebook are getting a free ride.
Sites like PB are merely sharing and distributing. Hopefully PB doesn't capture the metadata of what we post to sell-on to companies interested in selling us widgets or recruiting us to their cause and in the process making stacks of cash?
Or have I got this wrong?
What, then, Labour?
Labour risks being the Woolworths of political parties. Residual fondness for it as an idea, but nobody wants to go there.....
Funnily enough a similar thing happened with the EU membership being the most important thing ever.
Members opinion was occasionally very important as well, usually just on EU membership and just how they had originally voted and not their up to date thoughts.
I've learnt it is best to assume everything the Labour right say is purely a cynical lie to gain power within the Labour party and then things like this are more matter of fact than matter of disappointment.
Edit: I remember people arguing with me suggesting Labour even have a Black or mixed race man as leader such would the crime be to select another man as leader...
They will stop printing money when they no longer need to do so.
Its a Catch 22.
Right now, I'll take that. Inflation isn't nice, but neither is deflation. So long as the inflation isn't too much its the least worst evil available.
Do you mean the government should not be borrowing due to inflationary pressures? Because actually, if there is high inflation I would disagree with you there. Borrowing tends to become cheaper in real terms if inflation is high, regardless of nominal interest rates.
But if you were saying we, as individuals, do not want to be buying bonds and therefore lending to the government, I am agreeing with you, for exactly the same reason.
If you want to see the blind alley where trying GE2017 redux leads then I suggest you look at GE2019.
I mean there are many adjectives for Mrs May but charisma isn' t one I'd have at the top of my list.
Index linked bond borrowing costs will also increase as inflation resurfaces.
So I hope Sunak has got most of his borrowing out of the way.
But that didn't matter to Uber as how can you claim money from a none UK company that will just up sticks and close if they can't pay the final bill.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2019/schrodingers-cab-firm-ubers-existential-crisis/
Yes, they could knockout a Tory PM under route 1 but they wouldn't be able to do much of what they wanted to, and it wouldn't be very resilient or robust as the 1920s showed.
I hope Sunak has got most of the huge borrowing he has undertaken out of the way when his funding costs were extremely cheap.
But for investors, I agree, bond markets look very overvalued to me.
Voters wanted an end to austerity in 2017, yes - and I will say until I'm blue in the face that 2017 was a unique circumstance, and that Labour still lost - but that didn't mean they wanted an end to fiscal sanity.
GE2019 showed that most voters aren't that fussed about a small state, and nor do they want a massive state either - rather, they are interested in a balanced state, and a party who doesn't hate what it stands for.
The 2017 coalition was too narrow to win, I have never claimed it did win, with a less enthused (Brexit) Conservative vote it could win but it didn't in 2017.
My problem is with exploring narrower coalitions than 2017. Look if Starmer can somehow win millions of Conservative votes then he can happily tell millions of Labour voters to f off because they are extremists or various other vices and he doesn't want their votes. Ignoring my political views in terms of election winning that is a no brainer.
Short of Black Wednesday though that isn't happening, Starmer pissing off Labour voters whilst winning over very few Tories but being better liked by Lib Dems than Labour isn't even the Labour 2017 coalition which already lost let alone something capable of beating an enthused Conservative vote.
They are too set on purity.
Maybe I should just shrug and give up, and enjoy the pure blue Toryness.
I just hope future Tory PMs have enough fingers to count the wins out for the cameras outside Downing Street.
It's an AND and not an EITHER/OR choice, and you need to be self-reflective enough to see this.
She was also bone idle. Who could forget her decision to jet off to Italy on holiday while Parliament was in session, thus missing all the votes on universal credit where a government win wasn’t guaranteed.
Hilary Armstrong incidentally, who as a former Chief Whip and MP for Durham NW should know, thought her neglect of her seat was the real reason why she lost.
And the alternative to FB making money from the data should be that the media companies who are benefitting from being linked to from FB should be paying them for the service. The media companies want both the service of having traffic sent in their direction and to be paid for being given that service as well.
Starmer needs to present himself as the answer to something. But what, exactly, could that be? As we come out of the pandemic, a premium will be put on economic credibility. It'll be all about jobs. And that preoccupation rarely benefits Labour.
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1362723624201957378
I figure this way (from a left POV) gives the right a chance to prove all the rubbish they claimed when Corbyn was leader. When they fail then Labours next left wing leader will be able to far more easily dismiss nonsense about being 15-20 points ahead by pointing to the very recent right wing leader being behind.
But yeah Pidcock would have been a more challenging opponent for Starmer, still think he might have won, the rights lines about electability cut through to many Corbyn turned Starmer voters.
She led him by 5 points in Sep 16, and trailed by 16 a year later. So crossover at some point inbetween. I think it is fair to say that her lack of charisma during the campaign was a factor in her losing the Conservatives majority, hence my point about the more charismatic candidate outdoing their party's polling rather than winning the election
Boris leads Sir Keir 67-25
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1362733951413026877?s=20
I hope Keir can grab some positive bzz - he's relatively boring, but he's not as boring a speaker as people say either.
Uber were trying to claim that most of the money paid to Uber was actually being paid to the driver - when Uber are setting the fare, the driver's payment and their own commission.
If the payment was from the customer to the driver, who was then billed by Uber for running a booking engine, then the driver would be self-employed and VAT not payable on the full fare.
The technology is decent, but surely a non-dodgy business will step into the void if Uber do die.
"Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls). The helpful thing to know, as far as analysing polls is concerned, is that the candidate with more charisma/personality seems to out do their polling when it comes to votes being counted. It is like a hidden bonus/winning tie breaker for them"
'Maybe I erred previously in saying that the candidate with more charisma wins every time (although I was referring to the UK since 1979, and Major is the only one to win without it, according to IPSOS-MORI polls).'
It is different if it is a business operating on a viable model that then gets into difficulties because of the economic climate or other issues. Then I see the benefit of at least considering tax payer support in the short term as is the current case with the pandemic relief. But either Uber is a viable business paying its employees and taxes or it is not. If it is not then it deserves to fail.
But I think it is pretty fair to say Corbyn was the more charismatic of the two during the campaign, and that, despite losing, him being the more charismatic candidate enabled him to get a better result then the polls had predicted, which is what I think is useful to know.
(and the part you quoted was from the post you replied to, as I said!)
The latter was not a paid up member of the comfortably off middle class public sector/third sector/Education/media cohort that dominate the party.
A labour leader who wants to win would take these folk on. Tell them that they have done relatively OK compared to most through the pandemic and that they cannot expect to be a priority going forward. Indeed, some belt tightening might be in order.
Corbyn actually grasped that in a way Starmer doesn't.
And even the dead tree press has or had its freesheets.
Governments must try harder to ensure that there is a genuinely level playing field between indigenous businesses and these multinational tech companies (which is getting dangerously near getting back on topic, nice piece by the way).
shoutinghousing officer to a council he was a councillor on sounds pretty ‘comfortably off middle class public sector’ to me.Edit - that was an autocorrect ballsup, honest!
Would do the same for flu and colds next winter, so probably still worth doing then.
https://twitter.com/CorsIAQ/status/1362618407066030083
He won't last until 2024. I'd bet the farm laying him for next PM but I prefer more exciting wagers with faster gratification. He carved his own tombstone with the BLM stunt and it only remains to organise a funeral. The epitaph will be that he hit the ground kneeling.
Ask why the party was silent as prolonged school closures saw the gap between middle and working class kids widen to a chasm.
These are the abuses that actually spawned the labour movement, after all. Fighting them was the reason labour came into being.
If they aren't going to fight them, then what is the point? they are heading for extinction.
"John Bull
@garius
So why was their clash with UK Employment Law problematic, and why didn't they spot it?
Second part first: because the silicon valley firms ALWAYS forget that other countries don't work like America.
Otherwise they wouldn't hire Nick Clegg to lobby for them.
11:20 am · 19 Feb 2021·Twitter Web App"