At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
The designers of devolution have left us in Hotel California. Two fifths of the Scottish electorate go SNP while the other three fifths are hopelessly split. Even though there's an approximation to proportional voting, in party terms the SNP stay in charge at Holyrood, forever nagging for a vote which will only reluctantly be granted, and then when it is allowed it will likely be lost but the cycle will start all over again.
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
We are seeing its effects already with the divisions inside the monolith that used to be the SNP. Those with a tentative contact with reality, such as Sturgeon, look at these figures and know Indyref 2 is unwinnable so why give up that power and salary on a prayer? Those with an even more feeble grip accuse her of Petainism and greedy self interest which is frustrating the inevitable and glorious victory.
These tensions are threatening to tear the SNP apart. We already have Alba but not all the fundamentalists left which is why Sturgeon makes ever more desperate gestures. Given the stunningly ineffective nature of all the opposition parties this is pretty much the only viable way to a seriously overdue change of government.
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
But only if Labour and Lib Dems change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why can't LibLabs be more like Cons? Cons are so decent, such regular chaps; Ready to help you through any mishaps; Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum. Why can't LibLabs be a chum?
Why is thinking something LibLabs never do? And why is logic never even tried? Straightening up their hair is all they ever do. Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
The designers of devolution have left us in Hotel California. Two fifths of the Scottish electorate go SNP while the other three fifths are hopelessly split. Even though there's an approximation to proportional voting, in party terms the SNP stay in charge at Holyrood, forever nagging for a vote which will only reluctantly be granted, and then when it is allowed it will likely be lost but the cycle will start all over again.
Two fifths? Rather more than that. Edit: not counting dnvs, but then the three fifths figure doesn't count.
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
The situation in Scotland with regard to the nationalists and independence has similarities with the remainers wanting to rejoin the EU. They cannot come to terms with a democratic decision. In both cases, the best thing to do would be to accept the situation and try and work towards another referendum in 20 years time.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
As usual, you're probably right. I think trying to prop up a weakened Conservative Government in 2024 would be as helpful as would propping up a weakened Labour Government in 2010.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
C & S is most likely. Trudeau failed to get his majority yes but I agree O'Toole would also have hoped to pick up some seats, instead the Conservatives lost two.
Had they picked the moderate former Foreign Minister under Harper, Peter Mackay, as their leader in 2020 they might well have won. Mackay was the last leader of the Progressive Conservative party before it merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the CPC so likely to have had more appeal in the Atlantic states and Quebec and indeed Ontario which was where the election was lost. O'Toole, like Scheer in 2019 was only able to beat Trudeau in the old Reform/Canadian Alliance heartlands in the west.
As it is Trudeau may well step down in 2025, having done 10 years as PM at that point he would overtake Harper and Mulroney and St Laurent and be the 3rd longest serving Canadian PM postwar after his father, Pierre and Chretien. He could then hand over to his deputy
I have a sneaky feeling he'll want to beat his Dad. That is natural. As for leaders, folk continually underestimate Trudeau. He's a master. Won again on less than a third of the vote. That doesn't happen by accident. He sits where the median voter sits, and plays off both sides. Compared to any other Canadian politicians he is a giant.
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
The other problem is new boundaries. My vote next time will be in a constituency with a popular Lib Dem Council, shorn of its deep Blue hinterland. It could be a surprise LD gain.
It's quite funny how Michel wants to treat Australia as a renegade member state even though it's never been a member.
There must be a fair old number of Australians thinking "I now see why they left."
I can't agree. I'm sure he meant transparency in negotiations and loyalty to keeping agreements. Though having said that those ideals are quite alien to Aussies/Tories/US. (cf Afghan translators/NI political agreements/Protocol)
I've seen no suggestion even by the French that the Australians broke any contract. So unless the French expected the Australians to tell them first that they were looking elsewhere, before terminating their deal, I can't see how they can be accused of having done anything underhand. France knew that the Australians were very unhappy with progress, they had been told so repeatedly. If France couldn't anticipate Australia cancelling the deal that's their problem.
And hypothetically if Australia had said "we're talking to the Brits" you can be absolutely certain that France would have done everything in their power to block such a deal.
Yes it's a big blow to French pride (which we all know is easily wounded), but Australia acted in accordance with the contract, and did so in their own national interest.
I think if France has any real complaint it really lies with the UK and US forming a new alliance without telling them, rather than any failing on the part of Australia.
And the French can fuck right off, UK-wise
They have spent the last 4 years OPENLY saying they wanted to make Brexit hurt as much as possible (even beyond the logical benefit to the EU), they have tried to wreak damage on the City of London, they have conspired to isolate the UK vis-a-vis the world, their idiots in the EUCO unilaterally imposed a new UK land border across Ireland, without telling the UK - or Ireland. And then their wanky little martinet of a president dissed the AZ vaccine as useless, with no scientific evidence, just because of spite against Brexit Britain - thus probably condemning 1000s of humans to death via vax hesitance.
Quite frankly, they are lucky we are just humiliating them, rather than raining down nuclear warheads on Lyon and Narbonne
They have a better case against America, but I doubt the Americans care
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
I can sympathise with some of the ambitions (not all of them) but its the methods I disagree with. EG as I've often railed about our welfare state traps people in poverty, I wouldn't abolish welfare but I would lower the real tax rate people claiming it face so that they can raise themselves out of poverty via hard work. Ideally I'd have a UBI and a flat tax rate across all incomes rather than our current "Manhattan skyline" of tax rates where you get 75% (if claiming benefits), 31% (if not), then over 60% (withdrawal of tax allowance) and so on.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
So as long as we have a Tory government there will be no indyref2 allowed, it would need a Starmer premiership after the next UK general election, probably with SNP confidence and supply, for it to be allowed
SCUP voters are against independence referenda, democracy, etc.? Who knew?
Incidentally that shows how it is futile to assume that all Labour voters are pro-union.
64% of Labour voters still back the Union, only 21% independence in the poll, just they are more likely to back allowing an indyref2 than Tory voters
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
The other problem is new boundaries. My vote next time will be in a constituency with a popular Lib Dem Council, shorn of its deep Blue hinterland. It could be a surprise LD gain.
LD support at Local Elections though can often - albeit not always - flatter to deceive. Places such as Watford and Potsmouth South are now well out of reach for them despite success at local level over quite a few years. Any election held before autumn 2023 will not be on new boundaries.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
Don't know, but I'm thinking of switching to them next election just because there clearly needs to be a referendum. I know what game the Conservatives are playing and I do not like it one bit. Perhaps there are others like me, coming in to replace those who get frustrated and go elsewhere? I guess I've got until the spring to think about it, and see who else is on the ballot paper for the council election.
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
We are seeing its effects already with the divisions inside the monolith that used to be the SNP. Those with a tentative contact with reality, such as Sturgeon, look at these figures and know Indyref 2 is unwinnable so why give up that power and salary on a prayer? Those with an even more feeble grip accuse her of Petainism and greedy self interest which is frustrating the inevitable and glorious victory.
These tensions are threatening to tear the SNP apart. We already have Alba but not all the fundamentalists left which is why Sturgeon makes ever more desperate gestures. Given the stunningly ineffective nature of all the opposition parties this is pretty much the only viable way to a seriously overdue change of government.
Plus ca change, plus c'est etc etc
Until they really DO change
My guess (and it is just a guess): at some point SLAB or SCONs will acquire a charismatic leader, who will deny the SNP their hegemony in Holyrood (and of course at some point Sturgeon will also retire, and that might be the moment)
Then suddenly everything indeed changes. A Unionist govt in Holyrood. Perhaps then the UKG will seek a new permanent constitutional settlement with Holyrood. "Permanent" meaning - about 15-25 years
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
It depends what you mean by "confidence and supply", young HY. There was an agreement between the Liberal MPs and the Labour Government in the late 70s. The agreement was that the government would consult the Liberals constantly to see if they could support their proposals. The result was that we had a Liberal filter on Labour proposals, and it seemed to me that this was a time of good government.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
I don't think that there is an option for a low tax party at the ballot box anymore. The Tories just put up taxes so they could pay welfare to a subset of the retired.
And to be honest, there's probably not much of an option for a low tax party at a governmental level either. Pension spending is what it is and is going to be what it is going to be. Ditto health. Pretty much everything else has been squeezed fairly hard for a decade. The last couple of twigs of EU subscriptions and generous foreign aid have already gone on the bonfire.
It's tax rises or big tax rises from here.
you must be joking!!!!
The sate is a bolted inefficient blob, with more fat on it than boan.
We could and should cut massive amounts, but we will not. the public sector unions many be ineffective at providing good or even adequate services, but they are very good at making a lot of fuss, and creating bad headlines, and have made the political cost too high.
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
The designers of devolution have left us in Hotel California. Two fifths of the Scottish electorate go SNP while the other three fifths are hopelessly split. Even though there's an approximation to proportional voting, in party terms the SNP stay in charge at Holyrood, forever nagging for a vote which will only reluctantly be granted, and then when it is allowed it will likely be lost but the cycle will start all over again.
Two fifths? Rather more than that. Edit: not counting dnvs, but then the three fifths figure doesn't count.
40.3% in the regional vote that determines the number of MSPs.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
It depends what you mean by "confidence and supply", young HY. There was an agreement between the Liberal MPs and the Labour Government in the late 70s. The agreement was that the government would consult the Liberals constantly to see if they could support their proposals. The result was that we had a Liberal filter on Labour proposals, and it seemed to me that this was a time of good government.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
I still think Cameron - Clegg was a good government
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
The other problem is new boundaries. My vote next time will be in a constituency with a popular Lib Dem Council, shorn of its deep Blue hinterland. It could be a surprise LD gain.
LD support at Local Elections though can often - albeit not always - flatter to deceive. Places such as Watford and Potsmouth South are now well out of reach for them despite success at local level over quite a few years. Any election held before autumn 2023 will not be on new boundaries.
Visited the two new Northern Line stations today, maintaining my 100% record of visiting every train station in London!
Opinions?
Not bad, overall. A bit like scaled down versions of some of the Jubilee Line Extension stations such as North Greenwich and Canary Wharf (1999). Plenty of space at platform level, unlike most Zone 1 stations. Yes, both are in Zone 1, despite Kennington now being in Zone 1 and 2.
At what point does the obvious truth that there will likely be no Sindyref2 for 10 years start to impact the SNP vote?
Maybe never. Maybe the SNP are uniquely immune to political gravity. They have avoided it so far, quite impressively
The designers of devolution have left us in Hotel California. Two fifths of the Scottish electorate go SNP while the other three fifths are hopelessly split. Even though there's an approximation to proportional voting, in party terms the SNP stay in charge at Holyrood, forever nagging for a vote which will only reluctantly be granted, and then when it is allowed it will likely be lost but the cycle will start all over again.
Two fifths? Rather more than that. Edit: not counting dnvs, but then the three fifths figure doesn't count.
40.3% in the regional vote that determines the number of MSPs.
Constituency votes also determine the number of MSPs, and the figure you need here is 44.0% between the two.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
Visited the two new Northern Line stations today, maintaining my 100% record of visiting every train station in London!
Opinions?
Not bad, overall. A bit like scaled down versions of some of the Jubilee Line Extension stations such as North Greenwich and Canary Wharf (1999). Plenty of space at platform level, unlike most Zone 1 stations. Yes, both are in Zone 1, despite Kennington now being in Zone 1 and 2.
Those JLE stations are probably the best stations on the Underground. Immense and profound. Canary Wharf is mind boggling
So if the new stations have an echo of them, that's good
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
One thing about the Lib Dems, they'll never come close to winning my seat (Bassetlaw) as long as I live I think. Labour probably won't win it for a long time either - but there is more of a base for them than the Lib Dems here (Being obviously a historic Labour seat). So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*. I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted. Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
Daveyboy1961 said: 'I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.'
The seat was Labour- held until 2010 with the Preseli seat having fallen narrowly in 2005. Labour came surprisingly close to winning both seats in this year's Assembly elections.. '
That is true with the Assembly seats, but I would prefer a closer fight in the westminster elections.
I'm sure it'll be considered tittle-tattle, but it struck me as interesting because the way the question was put and the "yes" answer was such archetypal Boris.
What do I mean? Anyone seen the Rory Stewart quote on Boris as the complete all round Messi grade liar. I can't exactly recall but it goes along is in the vein of "the misdirection, the half truth, the bullshit, the whopper asoasf, Boris is versed in and has mastered them all"
Boris has been asked after all these years a question in the correct format. "Have you got £6" to a mate eliciting money might bring the answer "Yes". Does it mean you have only £6? Not necessarily.
Boris has and Boris knows he has revealed simply that he has AT LEAST six children. This in no way precludes that he has more.
Visited the two new Northern Line stations today, maintaining my 100% record of visiting every train station in London!
Opinions?
Not bad, overall. A bit like scaled down versions of some of the Jubilee Line Extension stations such as North Greenwich and Canary Wharf (1999). Plenty of space at platform level, unlike most Zone 1 stations. Yes, both are in Zone 1, despite Kennington now being in Zone 1 and 2.
Those JLE stations are probably the best stations on the Underground. Immense and profound. Canary Wharf is mind boggling
So if the new stations have an echo of them, that's good
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
Why is flat rate income tax a nonsense?
Currently the real tax rates are a mess but they are lower for the extremely rich than they are for the poorest on benefits. Then you get stupid shit like the £100k over 60% rate that just leads to people turning down work (as those lower down the ladder do) or doing salary sacrifice etc to legally avoid the tax.
A UBI to replace benefits combined with a clean, simple, unitary and flat tax rate would be a massive improvement. Abolish CGT and treat it as income.
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
I can sympathise with some of the ambitions (not all of them) but its the methods I disagree with. EG as I've often railed about our welfare state traps people in poverty, I wouldn't abolish welfare but I would lower the real tax rate people claiming it face so that they can raise themselves out of poverty via hard work. Ideally I'd have a UBI and a flat tax rate across all incomes rather than our current "Manhattan skyline" of tax rates where you get 75% (if claiming benefits), 31% (if not), then over 60% (withdrawal of tax allowance) and so on.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
Totaly agree:
One simples UBI, if you are British and Breathing you get the Benefit.
One absolutely flat tax on all income weather earned or unearned from your first pound to your last billion.
I would also add a Land Value Tax to replace council tax, business rates. and a few other bits.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
I can sympathise with some of the ambitions (not all of them) but its the methods I disagree with. EG as I've often railed about our welfare state traps people in poverty, I wouldn't abolish welfare but I would lower the real tax rate people claiming it face so that they can raise themselves out of poverty via hard work. Ideally I'd have a UBI and a flat tax rate across all incomes rather than our current "Manhattan skyline" of tax rates where you get 75% (if claiming benefits), 31% (if not), then over 60% (withdrawal of tax allowance) and so on.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
Totaly agree:
One simples UBI, if you are British and Breathing you get the Benefit.
Totally discriminatory for our many fine Ventilator Britons. Typical lung privilege.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
As usual, you're probably right. I think trying to prop up a weakened Conservative Government in 2024 would be as helpful as would propping up a weakened Labour Government in 2010.
That said, I can't see anything beyond C&S and that may not be straightforward.
On an unrelated, what was your take on the Canadian election? I thought O'Toole could and arguably should have done better especially after the strong start to the campaign but it all went a bit wrong for him and I'm not quite sure why.
I suspect Trudeau won't play the "snap" election card again so the CPC may have to wait until 2025 for another go. The truth is they made very little headway in the key battleground of Ontario.
C & S is most likely. Trudeau failed to get his majority yes but I agree O'Toole would also have hoped to pick up some seats, instead the Conservatives lost two.
Had they picked the moderate former Foreign Minister under Harper, Peter Mackay, as their leader in 2020 they might well have won. Mackay was the last leader of the Progressive Conservative party before it merged with the Canadian Alliance to form the CPC so likely to have had more appeal in the Atlantic states and Quebec and indeed Ontario which was where the election was lost. O'Toole, like Scheer in 2019 was only able to beat Trudeau in the old Reform/Canadian Alliance heartlands in the west.
As it is Trudeau may well step down in 2025, having done 10 years as PM at that point he would overtake Harper and Mulroney and St Laurent and be the 3rd longest serving Canadian PM postwar after his father, Pierre and Chretien. He could then hand over to his deputy
I have a sneaky feeling he'll want to beat his Dad. That is natural. As for leaders, folk continually underestimate Trudeau. He's a master. Won again on less than a third of the vote. That doesn't happen by accident. He sits where the median voter sits, and plays off both sides. Compared to any other Canadian politicians he is a giant.
I still struggle to recognise him when he does white face.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
I am sorry I misunderstood.
I thought you wanted NI applied to all earned income including pensions
If you want a single tax to take its place what would your suggest basic and higher rates should be
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
It depends what you mean by "confidence and supply", young HY. There was an agreement between the Liberal MPs and the Labour Government in the late 70s. The agreement was that the government would consult the Liberals constantly to see if they could support their proposals. The result was that we had a Liberal filter on Labour proposals, and it seemed to me that this was a time of good government.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
You think that the late 1970s where a good time of government? the winter of discontent and the IMF Bailout have slipped your memory perhaps?
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
There will be no Cities of London & Westminster in 2024 - it's being split between City of London & Islington South, and Westminster & Chelsea East.
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
Visited the two new Northern Line stations today, maintaining my 100% record of visiting every train station in London!
Opinions?
Not bad, overall. A bit like scaled down versions of some of the Jubilee Line Extension stations such as North Greenwich and Canary Wharf (1999). Plenty of space at platform level, unlike most Zone 1 stations. Yes, both are in Zone 1, despite Kennington now being in Zone 1 and 2.
Those JLE stations are probably the best stations on the Underground. Immense and profound. Canary Wharf is mind boggling
So if the new stations have an echo of them, that's good
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
There will be no Cities of London & Westminster in 2024 - it's being split between City of London & Islington South, and Westminster & Chelsea East.
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
New boundaries will not apply in Spring or Summer 2023.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
I am sorry I misunderstood.
I thought you wanted NI applied to all earned income including pensions
If you want a single tax to take its place what would your suggest basic and higher rates should be
There should not be basic and higher rates or extra high rates, or 10% rates or anything just one simple rate applied to everything, (and a UBI so it is progressive)
Amongst other benifits, that stops the arguments of we should 'pay for this thing that I benefit form by taxing people who are not me' insted every new 'good idea to spend money' would be felt by everybody.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
It depends what you mean by "confidence and supply", young HY. There was an agreement between the Liberal MPs and the Labour Government in the late 70s. The agreement was that the government would consult the Liberals constantly to see if they could support their proposals. The result was that we had a Liberal filter on Labour proposals, and it seemed to me that this was a time of good government.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
You think that the late 1970s where a good time of government? the winter of discontent and the IMF Bailout have slipped your memory perhaps?
The IMF intervention at the end of 1976 arose on the basis of Government Statistics re the PSBR which subsequently proved to be wildly inaccurate.The final corrected data would not have required the IMF at all.
Visited the two new Northern Line stations today, maintaining my 100% record of visiting every train station in London!
Nice photos. I decided to be a one-off train spotter and was on the first train yesterday morning at 5:28am along with the likes of Simon Calder and Geoff Marshall. Amazingly about 150 people turned up outside the station at about 5am before it had even been opened. I wasn't expecting more than about 20 or 30 people. Nearly everyone did the same thing, which was to go from Battersea to Kennington, back to Battersea, and then to Nine Elms to have a look at the station.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
Do any PBers know about this market?
Yes. Albeit not me.
Can anybody suggest some get rich quick idea’s?
Hard work,
Like the nurses who've been breaking their backs, especially the past 18 months?
BREAK: Xi Jinping says China will stop building coal plants overseas. This almost completely ends the international finance of coal in a single sentence.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 12h Government: faces sea of troubles, could be looking at a winter of crises. Labour: we'll just have a fight amongst ourselves over here then. Face with rolling eyesGrimacing faceConfounded face
The problem with Labour is that they cannot escape policy capture by public sector bureaucrats.
The Liberal Democrats, for all their faults (and whatever Ed is supposed to have said, I think it’s highly overblown) are the most properly liberal party and it’s frustrating to see you dismiss them.
The Lib Dems need more support - from actual liberals.
That's a fair point - the problem is the "classical liberal" tradition in the Party got trashed by the Orange Bookers and the Coalition. The all-too-brief philosophical convergence between Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg's Orange Book classical liberalism soon faded.
History tells us, however, a classical liberal party stuck between two tax and spend social democratic parties has a niche of 10-15% at most. The modern day Butskellism of the Conservative and Labour parties is predicated on buying votes by trying to promise more jam today and tomorrow.
The modern LDs have, in my view, regressed back to the comfortable niche of an inoffensive (to most) social liberalism without having the real courage to tackle the big fiscal questions around a State and country living within its means and the kind of society and State we want or are willing to pay for.
Traditionally, we are caught between the American model of a low tax low-welfare system and the Scandinavian model of a high-tax, high-welfare state. We of course want to have it both ways so we want low taxes AND high welfare.
Liberals shouldn't be averse to talking about raising taxes for example IF it is in the context of a broader debate around what kind of State and society we want. The economic model of low State provision and greater personal financial responsibility (insurance) is valid but the ramifications of that need to be spelt out in a society predicated on consumption.
Davey is positioning the LDs tactically to give confidence and supply to Starmer Labour that is why, they will not prop up Boris as they did Cameron so Orange Book liberalism will get pushed on the back burner for now in favour of social liberalism and diluting Brexit to make a deal with Labour easier
It depends what you mean by "confidence and supply", young HY. There was an agreement between the Liberal MPs and the Labour Government in the late 70s. The agreement was that the government would consult the Liberals constantly to see if they could support their proposals. The result was that we had a Liberal filter on Labour proposals, and it seemed to me that this was a time of good government.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
I still think Cameron - Clegg was a good government
I will never understand this perspective (which is shared by so many people on here).
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
I am sorry I misunderstood.
I thought you wanted NI applied to all earned income including pensions
If you want a single tax to take its place what would your suggest basic and higher rates should be
Ideally we shouldn't have basic and higher rates, the rate should be flat rather than creating issues with thresholds that makes it change.
Obviously need to work on numbers to make it work but something along the lines of a UBI of £8,000 per adult over 18, £4,000 per dependent under 18, with a single unitary flat tax rate of 40%
For a 2 adult, 2 child household that would be a UBI of £24,000. If both parents had a £30k salary on average then that would be the breakeven point so there would be not a penny in benefits and not a penny in tax either. Take home pay would be £60k.
Change the numbers to suit to make it work, but the tax rate should never as a matter of principle to me be over 50%.
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
The other problem is new boundaries. My vote next time will be in a constituency with a popular Lib Dem Council, shorn of its deep Blue hinterland. It could be a surprise LD gain.
LD support at Local Elections though can often - albeit not always - flatter to deceive. Places such as Watford and Potsmouth South are now well out of reach for them despite success at local level over quite a few years. Any election held before autumn 2023 will not be on new boundaries.
Isn't an example of a necessary, but not sufficient, condition?
The LDs are highly unlikely to perform unless they have a local government presence. But that, in itself, is not enough.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
Do any PBers know about this market?
Yes. Albeit not me.
Can anybody suggest some get rich quick idea’s?
Hard work,
If hard work were so good for you, the rich would have kept it for themselves.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 12h Government: faces sea of troubles, could be looking at a winter of crises. Labour: we'll just have a fight amongst ourselves over here then. Face with rolling eyesGrimacing faceConfounded face
It rather confirms my fear that Starmer lacks a political brain.
BREAK: Xi Jinping says China will stop building coal plants overseas. This almost completely ends the international finance of coal in a single sentence.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Whoa hold on. No, I don't think so. Pensions are earned.
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
There will be no Cities of London & Westminster in 2024 - it's being split between City of London & Islington South, and Westminster & Chelsea East.
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
New boundaries will not apply in Spring or Summer 2023.
Which is why the Conservatives will wait until 2024.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Whoa hold on. No, I don't think so. Pensions are earned.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Whoa hold on. No, I don't think so. Pensions are earned.
I am not sure @Philip_Thompson agrees with you but your answer is as I expected and I agree with
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
Do any PBers know about this market?
Yes. Albeit not me.
Can anybody suggest some get rich quick idea’s?
Hard work,
This is the very worst possible way of getting rich
Are you seriously suggesting HMG does not ensure CO2 supplies, or are you disappointed they are
I think Coates, who has a long standing specialty in climate crisis, makes a good point actually.
Don’t forget the PB maxim, a bad point can be a good point you don’t like the sound of.
How to get messaging and behaviour right on a change message, in order to build the big tent response the climate crisis needs, whilst keeping enough voters on board by not badly impacting their lives.
The response by PB was good as well, in the importance of CO2 in food preservation, but the response below from posters completely ignoring Coates actual point of the difficulty for politicians achieving change whilst remaining popular was total rubbish.
PS there is some criticism of a party in power 11 years who have a CO2 crisis because so much depends on 2 factories, is there not?
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
I can sympathise with some of the ambitions (not all of them) but its the methods I disagree with. EG as I've often railed about our welfare state traps people in poverty, I wouldn't abolish welfare but I would lower the real tax rate people claiming it face so that they can raise themselves out of poverty via hard work. Ideally I'd have a UBI and a flat tax rate across all incomes rather than our current "Manhattan skyline" of tax rates where you get 75% (if claiming benefits), 31% (if not), then over 60% (withdrawal of tax allowance) and so on.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
Totaly agree:
One simples UBI, if you are British and Breathing you get the Benefit.
Totally discriminatory for our many fine Ventilator Britons. Typical lung privilege.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Clause IV of the Labour Party originally stated that there should be common ownership of the means of production, and while Blair changed that, it still states that Labour is a democratic socialist party. Given Clause IV is pretty indicative of what the Labour Party is about, I don't think it has ever or ever will be a party you'd find to be attractive, Phil. I despise the hard left's obsession with finding traitors rather than converts, but I do think the Labour Party also needs to preserve at least some of the values it was founded on, even if that cuts us off from some parts of the electorate in doing so. After all, you yourself have left the Tories precisely because they departed from values you hold dear.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Whoa hold on. No, I don't think so. Pensions are earned.
I am not sure @Philip_Thompson agrees with you but your answer is as I expected and I agree with
I agree that pensions were earned. I also think that income is earned.
I see no reason why one of those should be taxed higher than the other.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
OMG! I agree with @Philip_Thompson . I must have become a Johnsonian Conservative- without noticing.
A timely reminder that whilst I might go on strike from voting Conservative I'm not going to vote for that tosspot.
I'm genuinely curious - Davey says something you don't like and he's automatically a "tosspot".
In all honesty, for a forum which occasionally talks about politics, the widespread contempt for almost all politicians is perhaps predictable but it's not sensible.
Who or what would make a good politician in your eyes? Inasmuch as no politician would run the country directly for your benefit (or mine), what is it you are looking for in a political figure?
Do you want a "strong" leader - lots of people enjoy being told what to do after all - or just someone who does the things you want?
I've dabbled in politics in my time - it's hard and often thankless work. You set off with noble intentions around public service and "wanting to do good" and it just wears you down - not the system but the ingratitude. Yet if, at any point, you sound off and reference that, out comes the abuse and vitriol.
It's often said a country gets the politicians it deserves - the more I see that, both here and round the world, the more accurate I think it is.
You're a Lib Dem loyalist, so you just can't or won't see it, but there's no doubt Ed Davey is a tosspot.
I don't like his Wokeness, his attitude to gender self-identification, his europhilia, and I've never liked him personally. He's a classroom snitch who makes things needlessly antagonistic and personal.
I did like David Laws, Jeremy Browne, Steve Webb and Nick Clegg and there are plenty other liberal orange-bookers I might vote for but him?
No.
How convenient for you that none of them are standing.
I guess it’s another tick for the face-eating leopard party, aka the “Burn the National Trust Now” campaign.
Nah, the Lib Dems have become infected with Woke. Labour can't seem to make their minds up about it and the Tories aren't. Ultimately if you have a red line over self-ID men going into female only spaces (which a lot of small c conservative voters do) then what are the options?
Ed Davey just tried to blame the Lib Dems kicking out a feminist from their party on the Tories. It's completely ridiculous. They're a joke.
Yes it has been obvious for some time that PB Tories will swallow increased taxes on young workers to featherbed pensioners as long as they are chucked a bit of red meat from the culture war. That is the Johnson strategy for 2024.
That's an aspersion on me, @MaxPB and @Philip_Thompson and none of us have said we'd fall for that.
If Liz Truss took over as PM by 2024 it might be a very different story.
Except that each of you, having harrumphed about tax rises, are all now fulminating about semi-imagined wokery in the LDs (and you’re obviously not going to vote for Labour).
It reminds me of the old Harry Enfield sketch, “the Self Righteous Brothers”.
Davey! No!
Boris’a strategy is working, so far as I can tell.
I don't really care about any wokery in the LDs. I've said I'd like to see what their economic policy is and all I see from Davey there is a call for more taxes but without saying what taxes they are he'd raise. Not exactly what I'm looking for there.
If Labour were too embrace low taxes then of course I could be tempted to vote Labour. I'm not holding my breath on that though.
What about similar overall levels but with Labour a shift from poor to rich, young to old, personal to corporate, income to wealth?
Tempting?
If you mean by the first two similar levels overall but taxes would be equalised between earned and unearned income and the poverty trap is fixed then yes I'd vote for that. I said that before.
On the final two it would really depend upon what is suggested. "Corporate" taxes are generally a very bad idea since corporate taxes like employers NI are really a tax on wages, and corporation tax leads to companies relocating profits abroad so don't raise revenues.
As for wealth, it depends again on what you propose. Since most wealth taxes ever tried have been dismal failures that lead to wealth fleeing overseas then that's a terrible idea. You'd have to be very smart with any proposal, pretty much the only thing that could work is a tax on property that is levied on the owners. Almost any other wealth taxes are a terrible idea that lead to flight (property can't flee) but I'd listen to your proposals.
What I mean is the overall tax burden about the same but under Labour more of it raised from wealth and less from income, and more from corporates and less from individuals. Does this have you taking a very close look and voting for it unless you find a catch?
As I said I am very suspicious about claimed taxes from wealth and corporates because most such taxes are very counterproductive. Any such tax that will just see immediate capital flight is an awful idea.
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Ok, I see. No, that will not be forthcoming from Labour. You can stop agonizing. Stay with the magnificent muscly one.
That's a shame.
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
Ah no we can do that, equalizing CGT and income tax, earned v unearned. Fact, we WILL be doing that. Thought you were talking about that 'flat rate' income tax nonsense. Apols. So, ok, welcome comrade.
So just for clarification you are going to apply full NI to all pensions as is @Philip_Thompson hopes
Abolish NI is what I hope for. Have one income tax that yes is paid the same whether by pensioners or employees.
Yes that's the ticket. But with higher rate bands.
"During a recent trip to the US, I had lunch with a young man from New York, who told me glumly that many of his peers had spent the summer swanning around Europe while he stayed put in America. They were all flaunting it on Instagram, of course, but none as aggressively as a clutch of young women in their early 20s, who had spent time in the most expensive spots: the Amalfi Coast, Porto Cervo, Capri. I peered at his phone and saw images of the girls draped over each other in terrace restaurants, on the prows of boats, laid along tree branches in thong bikinis, glowing with the gold-dust of fine living.
They were either still in college or freshly out of it. But the reason they, rather than the young man, were able to go yachting off Sardinia while sipping Dom Pérignon was because rich older men had hired them to come on a luxury holiday with them. The job — look hot, be nice, and be ready to accommodate more without crying assault — is called sugaring. It is — though sugar daddies or babies might not admit it — sex work. My friend betrayed no sense of surprise at the arrangement; such things had, he explained, become totally normal in his age group."
Inevitable consequence of stark wealth inequality.
Yes. Wealth is power. The exploitation is both ways here, superficially, but it isn't really. This is the rich using money to corrupt and demean and trivialize those who aren't.
So long as they're all consenting adults - why should anyone care?
Unless there's coercion or worse involved, the world's oldest profession isn't exploitation.
Things don't require overt coercion to be exploitation. That's a general truth, not just about sex work or "sugar daddydom". I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples.
Do any PBers know about this market?
Yes. Albeit not me.
Can anybody suggest some get rich quick idea’s?
Hard work,
This is the very worst possible way of getting rich
You're totally wrong. If you have a lot of people doing hard work for you, it works.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 12h Government: faces sea of troubles, could be looking at a winter of crises. Labour: we'll just have a fight amongst ourselves over here then. Face with rolling eyesGrimacing faceConfounded face
It rather confirms my fear that Starmer lacks a political brain.
More to the point where is he
I have not seen or heard from him for quite some time
I get the strong impression that some of our frequent Conservative posters who are totally disillusioned with the current government would indeed be willing to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
As long as Labour and Lib Dem change all their policies and adopt policies that are associated with the Conservatives (such as anti-wokeness, low tax, anti-EU, pro-rampant capitalism etc. etc.).
I see a problem with that.
Why?
I don't care about wokeness but yes I believe in low taxes, capitalism etc
When the Tory Party reflected my views I joined it, campaigned for it and voted for it. Since the Tories have moved away from that if the Labour Party claimed to start to reflect my views I'd hold my nose and vote for it and see if they really do or not.
If the Labour Party continues to reflect what it has in previous years then of course I won't vote for it. My aim is to get my views in power, that's what I exercise my vote for. Whichever party reflects that best gets my vote.
Well of course it would be great if you could be persuaded to vote Labour. But I suspect Labour's principles/policies might get in the way. For example, redistribution of wealth and power; reducing income inequality; making the rich pay a higher share of their income and wealth to benefit those less fortunate; using the power of the state to mitigate against the more divisive effects of untrammeled capitalism, including nationalisation of key industries where this is in the national interest; increasing foreign aid back to 0.7%; closer ties with the EU.... I could go on, but I hope you find these principles/policies attractive.
I can sympathise with some of the ambitions (not all of them) but its the methods I disagree with. EG as I've often railed about our welfare state traps people in poverty, I wouldn't abolish welfare but I would lower the real tax rate people claiming it face so that they can raise themselves out of poverty via hard work. Ideally I'd have a UBI and a flat tax rate across all incomes rather than our current "Manhattan skyline" of tax rates where you get 75% (if claiming benefits), 31% (if not), then over 60% (withdrawal of tax allowance) and so on.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
Totaly agree:
One simples UBI, if you are British and Breathing you get the Benefit.
Totally discriminatory for our many fine Ventilator Britons. Typical lung privilege.
Damn it, I was going to make that gag.
If only someone had the power to remove my post entirely as if it had never existed.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 12h Government: faces sea of troubles, could be looking at a winter of crises. Labour: we'll just have a fight amongst ourselves over here then. Face with rolling eyesGrimacing faceConfounded face
It rather confirms my fear that Starmer lacks a political brain.
More to the point where is he
I have not seen or heard from him for quite some time
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
There will be no Cities of London & Westminster in 2024 - it's being split between City of London & Islington South, and Westminster & Chelsea East.
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
New boundaries will not apply in Spring or Summer 2023.
Which is why the Conservatives will wait until 2024.
Maybe - but a lot of commentators and Tory MPs appear to expect a 2023 election. There is also serious doubt that this time the boundaries will actually confer any benefit on the Tories - a perverse effect of their 2019 red wall success. If so , why wait? Particularly if the economic outlook looks darker further ahead.
BREAK: Xi Jinping says China will stop building coal plants overseas. This almost completely ends the international finance of coal in a single sentence.
Even those inclined to vote tactically might be led astray by local factors in certain constituencies in 2019 which will almost certainly not be relevant next time. It will be very surprising if Labour does not regain its position as the main anti-Tory challenger in 2023 /2024 in seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster.It would make little sense to vote LD there on tactical grounds simply on the basis of the 2019 result there. Even in Wimbledon is the case for doing so is not entirely persuasive - given that Labour held the seat 1997 - 2005 and performed strongly there in 2017.
There will be no Cities of London & Westminster in 2024 - it's being split between City of London & Islington South, and Westminster & Chelsea East.
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
New boundaries will not apply in Spring or Summer 2023.
Which is why the Conservatives will wait until 2024.
Maybe - but a lot of commentators and Tory MPs appear to expect a 2023 election. There is also serious doubt that this time the boundaries will actually confer any benefit on the Tories - a perverse effect of their 2019 red wall success. If so , why wait? Particularly if the economic outlook looks darker further ahead.
Maybe they'll have some sympathy with the workers at the Boundary Commission. Poor buggers deserve for their work to mean something for a change.
Are you seriously suggesting HMG does not ensure CO2 supplies, or are you disappointed they are
I think Coates, who has a long standing specialty in climate crisis, makes a good point actually.
Don’t forget the PB maxim, a bad point can be a good point you don’t like the sound of.
How to get messaging and behaviour right on a change message, in order to build the big tent response the climate crisis needs, whilst keeping enough voters on board by not badly impacting their lives.
The response by PB was good as well, in the importance of CO2 in food preservation, but the response below from posters completely ignoring Coates actual point of the difficulty for politicians achieving change whilst remaining popular was total rubbish.
PS there is some criticism of a party in power 11 years who have a CO2 crisis because so much depends on 2 factories, is there not?
No - nobody has ever brought it up and it is a by product of covid and unique factors
Can anyone on here honestly say they knew we depend on 2 fertiliser factories for our CO2 and how extensive its use is
Comments
These tensions are threatening to tear the SNP apart. We already have Alba but not all the fundamentalists left which is why Sturgeon makes ever more desperate gestures. Given the stunningly ineffective nature of all the opposition parties this is pretty much the only viable way to a seriously overdue change of government.
Cons are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't LibLabs be a chum?
Why is thinking something LibLabs never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
As for leaders, folk continually underestimate Trudeau. He's a master. Won again on less than a third of the vote. That doesn't happen by accident.
He sits where the median voter sits, and plays off both sides. Compared to any other Canadian politicians he is a giant.
Foreign aid to 0.7% is the wrong objective. The objective should be foreign aid that works effectively, if that happens to cost 0.7% then so be it. If it can be done for 0.6% then great. If it needs 0.8% and is affordable then so be it. Spending for the sake of spending to meet a target leads to really inefficient spending that doesn't aid your objective.
https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1440282048254513169?s=20
I think he is now officially my Fave POTUS EVAH, surpassing even Reagan
Go, Demented Joe!
Any election held before autumn 2023 will not be on new boundaries.
I know what game the Conservatives are playing and I do not like it one bit. Perhaps there are others like me, coming in to replace those who get frustrated and go elsewhere?
I guess I've got until the spring to think about it, and see who else is on the ballot paper for the council election.
Until they really DO change
My guess (and it is just a guess): at some point SLAB or SCONs will acquire a charismatic leader, who will deny the SNP their hegemony in Holyrood (and of course at some point Sturgeon will also retire, and that might be the moment)
Then suddenly everything indeed changes. A Unionist govt in Holyrood. Perhaps then the UKG will seek a new permanent constitutional settlement with Holyrood. "Permanent" meaning - about 15-25 years
Taxes that are low but consistently applied, so lower rates but evenly to everyone (so those not paying their share see rises, the rest of us cuts) that I'm happy with.
Of course the extreme Socialists in the Labour Party misunderstood this, and thought that the Labour Government had been given support to push ahead with extreme Socialist policies. This was the beginning of a split in the Labour Party.
The trouble with HY and other Tory PB commentators is that they have no idea how the Liberal Democrats work. Any kind of arrangement with another party over support for government would have to be ratified by a party conference. HY and others are very sure about what the outcome would be. I have no idea what might be proposed or how it might be received. Still, fools do rush in, and HY does like to build his castles in the air.
The sate is a bolted inefficient blob, with more fat on it than boan.
We could and should cut massive amounts, but we will not. the public sector unions many be ineffective at providing good or even adequate services, but they are very good at making a lot of fuss, and creating bad headlines, and have made the political cost too high.
So if the new stations have an echo of them, that's good
A Labour Party that was true to its name and became the party of working people, that equalised taxes between earned and unearned income would be a party that was worth voting for.
It would also do more for raising the prospects of the 'working poor' etc than any amount of stupid capital flight inducing taxes ever could.
So whilst a vote for either won't unseat Clarke-Smith any time soon a Labour vote is probably a bit less wasted*.
I'm not just talking about Con-Lab marginals the same calculation might be made for a natural Conservative in Edinburgh South that a Tory vote there is simply wasted.
Do you vote for a party that can probably never win or go for one of the more realistic options ?
* Even if it's incredibly unlikely
Daveyboy1961 said:
'I have that problem in South Pembrokeshire. Our MP is the airhead Simon Hart. His majority is about 18% over Labour. The libdem vote is 4%. There is absolutely no chance of making a difference here.'
The seat was Labour- held until 2010 with the Preseli seat having fallen narrowly in 2005. Labour came surprisingly close to winning both seats in this year's Assembly elections..
'
That is true with the Assembly seats, but I would prefer a closer fight in the westminster elections.
Boris Johnson confirms how many kids he has - with another on the way
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/boris-johnson-finally-confirms-six-21632892#ICID=Android_HuddersfieldExaminerNewsApp_AppShare
I'm sure it'll be considered tittle-tattle, but it struck me as interesting because the way the question was put and the "yes" answer was such archetypal Boris.
What do I mean? Anyone seen the Rory Stewart quote on Boris as the complete all round Messi grade liar. I can't exactly recall but it goes along is in the vein of "the misdirection, the half truth, the bullshit, the whopper asoasf, Boris is versed in and has mastered them all"
Boris has been asked after all these years a question in the correct format. "Have you got £6" to a mate eliciting money might bring the answer "Yes". Does it mean you have only £6? Not necessarily.
Boris has and Boris knows he has revealed simply that he has AT LEAST six children. This in no way precludes that he has more.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+Battersea+Power+Station+tube&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image
As you can see, I went a little click-crazy with my camera
Nine Elms next...
But by COP, the government message will be to reduce CO2, stop coal production and reduce gas consumption to save the world
Any questions?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1440363588900638721
Currently the real tax rates are a mess but they are lower for the extremely rich than they are for the poorest on benefits. Then you get stupid shit like the £100k over 60% rate that just leads to people turning down work (as those lower down the ladder do) or doing salary sacrifice etc to legally avoid the tax.
A UBI to replace benefits combined with a clean, simple, unitary and flat tax rate would be a massive improvement. Abolish CGT and treat it as income.
One simples UBI, if you are British and Breathing you get the Benefit.
One absolutely flat tax on all income weather earned or unearned from your first pound to your last billion.
I would also add a Land Value Tax to replace council tax, business rates. and a few other bits.
You can do both
Are you seriously suggesting HMG does not ensure CO2 supplies, or are you disappointed they are
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/the-21-day-race-to-save-prince-andrews-reputation/ar-AAOFYyC?ocid=msedgntp#comments
I thought you wanted NI applied to all earned income including pensions
If you want a single tax to take its place what would your suggest basic and higher rates should be
Likewise, Hampstead (a Labour seat) is gaining Golders Green, but losing Kilburn.
Wimbledon is mostly unchanged, but I think we need to see what happens at the Merton Council elections next year to have a feel for 2024.
https://www.thewrit.ca/p/there-and-back-again-in-election
Amongst other benifits, that stops the arguments of we should 'pay for this thing that I benefit form by taxing people who are not me' insted every new 'good idea to spend money' would be felt by everybody.
https://twitter.com/KarlMathiesen/status/1440398670713610244?s=19
Possibly the most significant news of the day.
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31
·
12h
Government: faces sea of troubles, could be looking at a winter of crises.
Labour: we'll just have a fight amongst ourselves over here then. Face with rolling eyesGrimacing faceConfounded face
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/04/david-cameron-and-great-sell-out
Obviously need to work on numbers to make it work but something along the lines of a UBI of £8,000 per adult over 18, £4,000 per dependent under 18, with a single unitary flat tax rate of 40%
For a 2 adult, 2 child household that would be a UBI of £24,000. If both parents had a £30k salary on average then that would be the breakeven point so there would be not a penny in benefits and not a penny in tax either. Take home pay would be £60k.
Change the numbers to suit to make it work, but the tax rate should never as a matter of principle to me be over 50%.
The LDs are highly unlikely to perform unless they have a local government presence. But that, in itself, is not enough.
China doesn't build that many overseas coal fired power stations. That would... checks International Power Directory 2017... be the French and Alstom.
Not the three weeks bit though.
Don’t forget the PB maxim, a bad point can be a good point you don’t like the sound of.
How to get messaging and behaviour right on a change message, in order to build the big tent response the climate crisis needs, whilst keeping enough voters on board by not badly impacting their lives.
The response by PB was good as well, in the importance of CO2 in food preservation, but the response below from posters completely ignoring Coates actual point of the difficulty for politicians achieving change whilst remaining popular was total rubbish.
PS there is some criticism of a party in power 11 years who have a CO2 crisis because so much depends on 2 factories, is there not?
Given Clause IV is pretty indicative of what the Labour Party is about, I don't think it has ever or ever will be a party you'd find to be attractive, Phil. I despise the hard left's obsession with finding traitors rather than converts, but I do think the Labour Party also needs to preserve at least some of the values it was founded on, even if that cuts us off from some parts of the electorate in doing so. After all, you yourself have left the Tories precisely because they departed from values you hold dear.
I also think that income is earned.
I see no reason why one of those should be taxed higher than the other.
I have not seen or heard from him for quite some time
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1440343918718054404?s=19
Peston and Scott combined couldn't figure that out.
Oh. I see. 😂
https://twitter.com/KarlMathiesen/status/1440400260962996227?s=19
"No one will go short of food".
They are already are.
Can anyone on here honestly say they knew we depend on 2 fertiliser factories for our CO2 and how extensive its use is
Full shelves today at my Aldi. If people's preferred supermarket can't manage its stock properly, maybe try one that can.