This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
Today would have been a really good time to declare for a wealth tax on the elite and say they support jobs, businesses and labour.
I don't think they've settled on a Wealth Tax yet. I hope they do but there's big political risk in it. They need the floating voters of Middle England to come over in size and these people are susceptible to Tory spin that a Wealth Tax is government overreach, "Labour are coming for your house" etc. My bet is it won't make the manifesto. Starmer is very Centrist Dad. He's identified this as his best shot to get competitive at the GE. I hope I'm wrong but if I am wrong, I hope it works.
I have a house on the market which will attract CGT.
When do we think extra CGT will kick in if Rishi pushes it up significantly, and what stage of sale will it apply to ie everything not exchanged or not completed?
IIHIR the Statement is Nov 23, so for safety it is complete by then.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
There are far more ways of looking at the world than there are labels. Being a Conservative - or even voting Conservative - does not mean you approve of everything the Conservative Party does. Voting Labour doesn't mean you disapprove of everything the Conservative Party does.
I agree with Philip on some things (e.g. taxation, Brexit, the monarchy) and disagree on others (public transport, the countryside). That doesn't mean that his views - or mine - are confused. Just that having a set of views on thing 1 doesn't imply an easily identified set of views on thing 2.
Sorry I think you are confused, at least about the point I was making. There is a big difference between BEING a Conservative and VOTING Conservative. It is pretty strange to be an anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, anti-planning laws, in favour of the break up of the UK Conservative. These things are completely at odds. It is like claiming to be a Liberal and at the same time being a racist who is in favour of sending migrants "back home".
One might vote Conservative to keep Corbyn out (perfectly reasonable) and hold any views, but one cannot claim to be "a" Conservative. He is a libertarian populist who votes Conservative.... but now says he won't.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
No you don't.
I do. It's counter-intuitive, hence why I've noticed it.
This gets to the point - there are so many confounding factors that it's impossible to say in general whether eating/skipping breakfast is a good thing. If it works for you, it works for you.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
No you don't.
I do. It's counter-intuitive, hence why I've noticed it.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
There are far more ways of looking at the world than there are labels. Being a Conservative - or even voting Conservative - does not mean you approve of everything the Conservative Party does. Voting Labour doesn't mean you disapprove of everything the Conservative Party does.
I agree with Philip on some things (e.g. taxation, Brexit, the monarchy) and disagree on others (public transport, the countryside). That doesn't mean that his views - or mine - are confused. Just that having a set of views on thing 1 doesn't imply an easily identified set of views on thing 2.
Sorry I think you are confused, at least about the point I was making. There is a big difference between BEING a Conservative and VOTING Conservative. It is pretty strange to be an anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, anti-planning laws, in favour of the break up of the UK Conservative. These things are completely at odds. It is like claiming to be a Liberal and at the same time being a racist who is in favour of sending migrants "back home".
One might vote Conservative to keep Corbyn out (perfectly reasonable) and hold any views, but one cannot claim to be "a" Conservative. He is a libertarian populist who votes Conservative.... but now says he won't.
Growing up in Australia it was far more common for people to pay attention to capitalisation when discussing politics. Are you talking about someone who is small-l liberal or capital-L Liberal? The same here, conservative or Conservative?
As far as preserving the state is concerned no I'm not a small-c conservative, I've never claimed otherwise. But the centre-right party here is called Conservative not Liberal so I've always called myself a "liberal Conservative" - in Australia it'd be easier, just say Liberal.
"Some might call it extreme to destroy an animal or pet on suspicion only."
Is that not the precautionary principle? Often used when the science is not 100%. It seldom is 100%. Global warming is based on that. If you can't test its fallibility or predict with it, it's never going to be 100% scientific, even if it is true.
I always regretted the phlogiston theory was ever dismissed. I quite liked it. At least you could predict and test it.
I suppose that is a view. A rather callous and brutal view when the life of a pet is concerned. There are other precautions available. I don't know how those Defra vets can live with themselves to be honest.
Are there scientifically sound reasons for treating a 'pet' differently to any other animal in these circumstances?
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
Today would have been a really good time to declare for a wealth tax on the elite and say they support jobs, businesses and labour.
I don't think they've settled on a Wealth Tax yet. I hope they do but there's big political risk in it. They need the floating voters of Middle England to come over in size and these people are susceptible to Tory spin that a Wealth Tax is government overreach, "Labour are coming for your house" etc. My bet is it won't make the manifesto. Starmer is very Centrist Dad. He's identified this as his best shot to get competitive at the GE. I hope I'm wrong but if I am wrong, I hope it works.
No! The risk is in not embracing the wealth tax, it is very popular and the main criticism of Labour is they are an empty vessel. Let this be their vessel.
(As it is new, I accept there has to be some doubt about whether it would be effective for HMRC, but Boris has shown that is completely separate to being effective politically).
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
That is my experience. Not the fasting - I've never - but the general point. If I eat a big breakfast I tend to want an even bigger lunch. And if I have a big lunch I want a massive dinner.
No you don't.
I do. It's counter-intuitive, hence why I've noticed it.
This gets to the point - there are so many confounding factors that it's impossible to say in general whether eating/skipping breakfast is a good thing. If it works for you, it works for you.
Apart from really obvious things like do not have a gigantic fry-up every morning I think that's right.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
Today would have been a really good time to declare for a wealth tax on the elite and say they support jobs, businesses and labour.
I don't think they've settled on a Wealth Tax yet. I hope they do but there's big political risk in it. They need the floating voters of Middle England to come over in size and these people are susceptible to Tory spin that a Wealth Tax is government overreach, "Labour are coming for your house" etc. My bet is it won't make the manifesto. Starmer is very Centrist Dad. He's identified this as his best shot to get competitive at the GE. I hope I'm wrong but if I am wrong, I hope it works.
No! The risk is in not embracing the wealth tax, it is very popular and the main criticism of Labour is they are an empty vessel. Let this be their vessel.
(As it is new, I accept there has to be some doubt about whether it would be effective for HMRC, but Boris has shown that is completely separate to being effective politically).
I agree, I'd like to see it, and perhaps we will, but my sense is that Starmer is going another way.
Probably the best breakfast is none, or just a black coffee*. That breakfast is the most important meal of the day is a myth promoted by cereal manufacturers.
* if that is too radical, an egg or two with no toast or other carbs.
Absolute total, unadulterated bollocks. Not surprising from an NHS consultant, that said.
Skip breakfast and by 10am you are hungry, lose concentration and are likely to attack a packet of chocolate digestives.
Have a good breakfast and that will see you through to lunch.
As usual, you are completely wrong. Hunger pangs are worse in those that eat breakfast. This is backed by science. The book cited in this article covers it well:
Total nonsense but then if you're resorting to Marie Claire for your scientific backing all hope in an academic discussion is lost.
I've lost three stone in 8 months and I eat a hearty but healthy breakfast. Most important meal of the day.
Breakfast like a king, lunch like a Queen, dinner like a prince (or princess).
Eat a good brekkie and it's a proven path to weight loss.
But of course you need to combine exercise with healthy eating. End of the day, it all comes down to calories in versus calories out.
The Marie Claire article is a book review. The book itself is heavily referenced with multiple scientific papers. The nutritional science supports it.
Meanwhile we live in a country in the grip of an obesity crisis, committing slow suicide by food.
I can't win, if I am on the upper limit of my permitted bmi everyone says I look drawn and haggard and unwell, put on a stone and they all say how well I look. I have decided to embrace my inner fat man, but it is going to require extensive retrousering if it goes any further.
BMI is a b/s measure for many people. Trying to target a BMI that is designed for a cohort, rather than an individual, leads to a heck of a lot of heartache and misery. I do sometimes wonder if it causes more harm (crash dieting, mental anguish) than good.
First off, unless you are being weighed as part of your chosen activity, bin the scales. And don't go near BMI with a barge pole. Anthony Joshua would be taken instantly to A&E under blue lights if a doctor took it seriously.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
Lol, the Tory party is HYFUD these days, an empty vessel.
Hasn't a persons wealth been created through working, or are we just going to tax the equity in someone's house
A good deal of wealth is inherited - it'd be interesting to know how much (including increasing value of inherited assets). This can be presented either as "enabling people to look after their families" or "perpetuating the class system". What it isn't is "created through working".
I favour the Swiss approach of a modest annual tax - quite apart from the social justice it encourages people sitting on large asset values to put them to productive use. A relative of my father's owned a castle with a large estate - he didn't actually know how large, as he left that detail to the estate manager, but a substantial area was apparently unused. Concentrating landowning minds on whether one actually needs all the land one owns might be quite helpful.
The Swiss Wealth Tax has distinctives:
1 - The very wide asset base taxed. 2 - It is the only one that raises significant amounts of money.
Yes, no point in a narrow asset base - it just encourages avoidance. Having a very small percentage (0.1-1.1%) on a very large asset base is the way to go. It generates 3.6% of national revenue. Evasion is an issue although less than it used to be - it's quite difficult to conceal chunky things like houses and yachts, and banking secrecy is not quite what it was.
This is what leaning left on the economy and leaning right on culture looks like. It is a new era in British politics.....
.....Classic low tax fiscal Conservatives will hate it. Many on left will struggle to reply to it. But goes to show how tectonic plates of British politics are on move, also (imo) Johnson underestimated. Happy to be wrong but suspect much of this strengthens not weakens his appeal
The politics professor has logged on to tell us that hiking taxes on the low-paid to protect the wealthy is "leaning left on the economy".
What's Labour's alternative?
Why do you want to know?
The question is for the benefit of the group. Hadn't you noticed that there are plenty of political orphans on PB, only some of whom will revert back to the party they supposedly left.
How big was that cheque you wrote, btw - I hear it would have been 1.35% had that not arrived on Rishi's desk.
My question is also for the benefit of the group.
Allow me to answer.
So that those political orphans can weigh up the various policy options in anticipation of making a decision as to who to vote for.
(Whom I know but it sounds odd.)
Ok, but it's a mug's game for Labour to get into loads of detail.
"This is a terrible way to raise funds. It targets the low paid rather than the wealthy. We'd make the opposite choice."
That's enough for now imo.
Today would have been a really good time to declare for a wealth tax on the elite and say they support jobs, businesses and labour.
I don't think they've settled on a Wealth Tax yet. I hope they do but there's big political risk in it. They need the floating voters of Middle England to come over in size and these people are susceptible to Tory spin that a Wealth Tax is government overreach, "Labour are coming for your house" etc. My bet is it won't make the manifesto. Starmer is very Centrist Dad. He's identified this as his best shot to get competitive at the GE. I hope I'm wrong but if I am wrong, I hope it works.
No! The risk is in not embracing the wealth tax, it is very popular and the main criticism of Labour is they are an empty vessel. Let this be their vessel.
(As it is new, I accept there has to be some doubt about whether it would be effective for HMRC, but Boris has shown that is completely separate to being effective politically).
I agree with you, but my sense is like Kinabalu's.
Interesting that I found much to agree with Philip Thompson's article, but was delighted at the headline. I very much hope that people of such far right English nationalist views as Philip take his lead and leave the party that I was once a member of, so that it can return to a more sane and moderate version of its current populist far right self. If that happens and there are less people that share Philip's views I might just re-join.
For the umpteenth time I'm not far right.
I'm very right economically, but very "woke" socially.
The only peg you claim I'm 'far right' on is I backed Brexit (as did 52% of the country), and rejected Mays deal (as did a majority of the Commons 3 times).
Set views on Brexit aside what have you ever had to object to that I've ever written? I am and always have been a liberal Conservative.
You have claimed to be a "libertarian" conservative, which is very very different to a liberal Conservative. Libertarian Conservatism used to be a very small grouping in the conservative party and it is very much on the furthest right wing of the party, it is now more powerful. Your views often seem very confused, and perhaps the politest view is that you are "on a journey". As I have said before, someone who is anti-monarchy, anti-countryside, and in favour of the breakup of the UK is not a conservative. You are a right wing populist, not a Conservative, and definitely not liberal.
Very good article though and agreed with much of it.
As a veteran of the "are you exactly my sort of socialist?" debates, can I advise you both not to go there? One never wins, and just ends up feeling unnecessarily divided.
There is no need for vaccine passports. So one must conclude there is another agenda at work.
The difference between a 'conspiracy theory' and the truth seems to be a year or less.
The govt's website gives a few clues: 'Partnership with the World Economic Forum'; '4th. Industrial Revolution'; 'Build Back Better'. A digital ID cards 'consultation' went through in May ... ironically the system malfunctioned & I couldn't submit all my comments.
I suspect the Danish government is inventing solutions to problems to chase headlines, just as the British government is doing.
The actual arrangement between Rwanda and Denmark is for the latter to provide support to Rwanda in processing its own migrant claims, because unbeknownst to people in Northern Europe, third world countries on the whole have a bigger migration problem they are less well equipped to deal with.
Denmark can pretend this is a solution to Denmark's migrant problem. The UK government can then latch onto a "model" for them.
Today's headline that the government has obtained legal advice on pushing boats out to sea is part of that pattern of pretend solutions to indicate the government is doing something. Presumably Counsel told Patel in no uncertain terms that the proposed action is in severe breach of its obligations under the Law of the Sea. She can then lock it away in a drawer and say, she got the legal advice.
Comments
I have a house on the market which will attract CGT.
When do we think extra CGT will kick in if Rishi pushes it up significantly, and what stage of sale will it apply to ie everything not exchanged or not completed?
IIHIR the Statement is Nov 23, so for safety it is complete by then.
Thanks
One might vote Conservative to keep Corbyn out (perfectly reasonable) and hold any views, but one cannot claim to be "a" Conservative. He is a libertarian populist who votes Conservative.... but now says he won't.
Just like the suggestion that no TB was present, conveniently coming from the owner's vet.
If it works for you, it works for you.
As far as preserving the state is concerned no I'm not a small-c conservative, I've never claimed otherwise. But the centre-right party here is called Conservative not Liberal so I've always called myself a "liberal Conservative" - in Australia it'd be easier, just say Liberal.
No! The risk is in not embracing the wealth tax, it is very popular and the main criticism of Labour is they are an empty vessel. Let this be their vessel.
(As it is new, I accept there has to be some doubt about whether it would be effective for HMRC, but Boris has shown that is completely separate to being effective politically).
https://www.taxolution.ch/wealth-tax/
The govt's website gives a few clues: 'Partnership with the World Economic Forum'; '4th. Industrial Revolution'; 'Build Back Better'. A digital ID cards 'consultation' went through in May ... ironically the system malfunctioned & I couldn't submit all my comments.
Some mainstream media but not many have woken up
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-need-to-act-now-to-block-britain-s-social-credit-system
The actual arrangement between Rwanda and Denmark is for the latter to provide support to Rwanda in processing its own migrant claims, because unbeknownst to people in Northern Europe, third world countries on the whole have a bigger migration problem they are less well equipped to deal with.
Denmark can pretend this is a solution to Denmark's migrant problem. The UK government can then latch onto a "model" for them.
Details including text of the agreement here: https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/32041/denmark-seeks-to-externalize-asylum-obligations-to-rwanda
Today's headline that the government has obtained legal advice on pushing boats out to sea is part of that pattern of pretend solutions to indicate the government is doing something. Presumably Counsel told Patel in no uncertain terms that the proposed action is in severe breach of its obligations under the Law of the Sea. She can then lock it away in a drawer and say, she got the legal advice.