HYUFD said:

Thayer5 said:

The curse of nominal determinism strikes again.

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856

Biden not alone in facing accusations then, now Mayor Pete

Worth noting that these are both much more serious accusations but also completely unverified. The women who accused Biden were clear that while they felt his behaviour was unacceptable it had been creepy, not actual sexual assault. This blog post, which no journalist has yet looked into or cleared pre-publication, implies a full on sexual assault took place. And a mere couple of months ago, to boot. If it checks out, it will surely be explosive in a way the Biden accusations ended up not being.

Not to minimise the accusations against Biden morally. They simply haven't yet changed the dynamic politically.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.

The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.

I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).

Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.

Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-crisis-raising-national-insurance-half-british-people-yougov-poll-1p-in-the-pound-simon-a7525326.html

Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.

I totally agree. Does anyone have any idea how much would be raised if pensioners were not exempt from NI? NI is just disguised income tax with a concession for high earners and pensioners. Very regressive.

Gardenwalker said:

Thayer5 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Thayer5 said:

The curse of nominal determinism strikes again.

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856

“In the days and weeks ahead, I will share my full story with the nation,” his post finished.

Because it’s a perfectly normal thing to do when you’ve been sexually assaulted to spin it out into some kind of box set entertainment for the media.

I was merely commenting on the unfortunate overlap between name and accusation.

Sure. His name is stupid.
I’m just a bit skeptical about this story. But let’s see.

Put me firmly in the sceptical camp.

Cyclefree said:

McDonnell is utterly untrustworthy. He looks and behaves like one of those bent Met detectives from the 1970’s: outwardly charming and seemingly competent but not to be trusted, quite willing to bend the rules and use violence to get his way and nowhere near as competent as he thinks he is.

Abbott is probably not up to being leader but has more good points than some of her detractors allow.

Owen Smith: a bit meh but in the land of the blind etc.....

McDonnell is dangerous mainly because he's in a job that no sane leader would have ever given him. His economic knowledge seems minimal, and that against a backdrop of incompetence such as Brown (admittedly he's not widely given the discredit he deserves for his economic knowledge).

Abbott is in roughly the job which suits her least.

Owen Smith is yesterday's not-the-man.

There are some other awful choices - Nia Griffith -Defence!

The only person I can think of who's quite well suited to his job in the shadow cabinet is Starmer.

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

McDonnell is utterly untrustworthy. He looks and behaves like one of those bent Met detectives from the 1970’s: outwardly charming and seemingly competent but not to be trusted, quite willing to bend the rules and use violence to get his way and nowhere near as competent as he thinks he is.

Abbott is probably not up to being leader but has more good points than some of her detractors allow.

Owen Smith: a bit meh but in the land of the blind etc.....

McDonnell is dangerous mainly because he's in a job that no sane leader would have ever given him. His economic knowledge seems minimal, and that against a backdrop of incompetence such as Brown (admittedly he's not widely given the discredit he deserves for his economic knowledge).

Abbott is in roughly the job which suits her least.

Owen Smith is yesterday's not-the-man.

There are some other awful choices - Nia Griffith -Defence!

The only person I can think of who's quite well suited to his job in the shadow cabinet is Starmer.

Ashworth?

rottenborough said:

Quincel said:

Barnesian said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.

The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.

I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).

Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.

Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-crisis-raising-national-insurance-half-british-people-yougov-poll-1p-in-the-pound-simon-a7525326.html

Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.

I totally agree. Does anyone have any idea how much would be raised if pensioners were not exempt from NI? NI is just disguised income tax with a concession for high earners and pensioners. Very regressive.

HMRC publishes the estimated cost of about 100 tax reliefs each year, but sadly this isn't on it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/main-tax-expenditures-and-structural-reliefs

Personally I've never understood why capital gains tax doesn't apply to your main home. That's estimated to cost £27bn per year.

A drawback would be it would stop pensioners downsizing from family homes they no longer need.

Sure, everything is a tradeoff. But it seems a pretty expensive and ill-targetted one. If the relief didn't exist would anyone propose (or support) a £27bn annual fund to subsidise pensioners downsizing? It's a huge sum of money, and currently paid to not just that group.

Mayor Pete he takes the morning train...

https://twitter.com/lis_smith/status/1122915023448358912?s=21

ydoethur said:

Wouldn't it also be more likely to stop people moving between areas, impacting labour mobility?

Why? People would get 80% of the increase in value of each home for the period they lived in them - moving or not moving wouldn't change their profits. It might disincentivise people moving from one area where house prices are rising to another area where people don't expect them to rise, but the lack of house price rise is a much bigger disincentive there.

I may be missing something, but isn't that like saying people would move jobs more if income tax was lower? There is no tax advantage to staying put or moving either way, assuming the pay/house price rise is the same in each case.

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Quincel said:

Barnesian said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.

The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.

I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).

Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.

Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-crisis-raising-national-insurance-half-british-people-yougov-poll-1p-in-the-pound-simon-a7525326.html

Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.

I totally agree. Does anyone have any idea how much would be raised if pensioners were not exempt from NI? NI is just disguised income tax with a concession for high earners and pensioners. Very regressive.

HMRC publishes the estimated cost of about 100 tax reliefs each year, but sadly this isn't on it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/main-tax-expenditures-and-structural-reliefs

Personally I've never understood why capital gains tax doesn't apply to your main home. That's estimated to cost £27bn per year.

A drawback would be it would stop pensioners downsizing from family homes they no longer need.

Sure, everything is a tradeoff. But it seems a pretty expensive and ill-targetted one. If the relief didn't exist would anyone propose (or support) a £27bn annual fund to subsidise pensioners downsizing? It's a huge sum of money, and currently paid to not just that group.

For the great majority of people, the family home is their major and only investment.

It’s profoundly un-Tory to tax it for capital gains in my view, even if it is “logical”.

AmpfieldAndy said:

HYUFD said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

There would need to be a major volte face by McCluskey for Labour to come out in favour of a second referendum. Even that might not be enough with Labour unlikely to rebuild their support in Scotland.

The Tories need to recognise its no deal or no Brexit, get shot of May and get on with life after Brexit if they are to have any chance of reversing the damage May, Hammond, Clark, Grayling have done.

Frankly, neither party is worth voting for at the moment but the danger McDonnell poses to the economy is by far the greatest.

It isn't, more MPs have voted for May's Deal or Deal plus Customs Union than No Deal or revoke Article 50 in the indicative votes and Deal plus Customs Union was also closer to a majority than EUref2

That’s largely because of Party whipping. May’s deal might legally be Brexit but it is inferior to both no deal and no Brexit. Tacking a CU onto it, would be insane - outsourcing our trade policy.

May’s deal is the only sane Brexit we are left with.

If we don’t do May’s deal, we shouldn’t leave.

Quincel said:

ydoethur said:

Wouldn't it also be more likely to stop people moving between areas, impacting labour mobility?

Why? People would get 80% of the increase in value of each home for the period they lived in them - moving or not moving wouldn't change their profits. It might disincentivise people moving from one area where house prices are rising to another area where people don't expect them to rise, but the lack of house price rise is a much bigger disincentive there.

I may be missing something, but isn't that like saying people would move jobs more if income tax was lower? There is no tax advantage to staying put or moving either way, assuming the pay/house price rise is the same in each case.

I'm more concerned that if I moved from Cannock (where prices are low) to Gloucestershire (where they are not) losing any additional value of my house would make that more difficult.

But ultimately I think the exemption is because a house that you live in isn't 'capital.' It's closer to a car than a share portfolio.

HYUFD said:

Thayer5 said:

The curse of nominal determinism strikes again.

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856

Biden not alone in facing accusations then, now Mayor Pete

Turned out he was a good lay after all.

rkrkrk said:

Quincel said:

rottenborough said:

Quincel said:

Barnesian said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

eek said:

Yep - it's why I liked the original approach of taking it out of inheritance. While it may have destroyed my inheritance it was both better than the current gamble and the other option of increasing taxes.

The thing is that the money does need to come from somewhere the question is really only one of where.

I agree with you. I liked Burnham's Death Tax and I liked Timothy's Dementia Tax. They both had head & heart in the right place. Fund social care out of late lifers' housing wealth (payment deferred until death if necessary) and put a floor in so that people cannot be left with nothing at all to pass on (unless they had nothing at all to start with).

Absolutely not. The dementia tax was a disaster on the doorstep and the Death Tax and higher inheritance tax also deeply unpopular.

Fund social care out of higher National Insurance on over 50s, it would raise a lot and most people actually support raising NI to pay for healthcare

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-funding-crisis-raising-national-insurance-half-british-people-yougov-poll-1p-in-the-pound-simon-a7525326.html

Pensioners should also be hit with NI where appropriate. It is ridiculous if they are earning that they don't pay this considering the costs the state is having to bear.

I totally agree. Does anyone have any idea how much would be raised if pensioners were not exempt from NI? NI is just disguised income tax with a concession for high earners and pensioners. Very regressive.

HMRC publishes the estimated cost of about 100 tax reliefs each year, but sadly this isn't on it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/main-tax-expenditures-and-structural-reliefs

Personally I've never understood why capital gains tax doesn't apply to your main home. That's estimated to cost £27bn per year.

A drawback would be it would stop pensioners downsizing from family homes they no longer need.

Sure, everything is a tradeoff. But it seems a pretty expensive and ill-targetted one. If the relief didn't exist would anyone propose (or support) a £27bn annual fund to subsidise pensioners downsizing? It's a huge sum of money, and currently paid to not just that group.

It also keeps property prices higher than they would be otherwise. It directs capital away from productive areas of the economy towards unproductive areas.

A land tax would be better.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Thayer5 said:

The curse of nominal determinism strikes again.

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856

Biden not alone in facing accusations then, now Mayor Pete

Turned out he was a good lay after all.

And people accuse me of making bad puns!

ydoethur said:

Quincel said:

ydoethur said:

Wouldn't it also be more likely to stop people moving between areas, impacting labour mobility?

Why? People would get 80% of the increase in value of each home for the period they lived in them - moving or not moving wouldn't change their profits. It might disincentivise people moving from one area where house prices are rising to another area where people don't expect them to rise, but the lack of house price rise is a much bigger disincentive there.

I may be missing something, but isn't that like saying people would move jobs more if income tax was lower? There is no tax advantage to staying put or moving either way, assuming the pay/house price rise is the same in each case.

I'm more concerned that if I moved from Cannock (where prices are low) to Gloucestershire (where they are not) losing any additional value of my house would make that more difficult.

But ultimately I think the exemption is because a house that you live in isn't 'capital.' It's closer to a car than a share portfolio.

A house is nothing like a car. Cars depreciate.

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

McDonnell is utterly untrustworthy. He looks and behaves like one of those bent Met detectives from the 1970’s: outwardly charming and seemingly competent but not to be trusted, quite willing to bend the rules and use violence to get his way and nowhere near as competent as he thinks he is.

Abbott is probably not up to being leader but has more good points than some of her detractors allow.

Owen Smith: a bit meh but in the land of the blind etc.....

McDonnell is dangerous mainly because he's in a job that no sane leader would have ever given him. His economic knowledge seems minimal, and that against a backdrop of incompetence such as Brown (admittedly he's not widely given the discredit he deserves for his economic knowledge).

Abbott is in roughly the job which suits her least.

Owen Smith is yesterday's not-the-man.

There are some other awful choices - Nia Griffith -Defence!

The only person I can think of who's quite well suited to his job in the shadow cabinet is Starmer.

Ashworth?

Hardly. Once you look past Cooper, Kendall, and Field, there is the same lack of quality as there is in all political parties. All of them rely on patronage for advancing their careers and that is the root cause of why our politics is an international joke

I would not describe Liz Kendall as 'quality.' Moreover none of those three are in the Shadow Cabinet and Field isn't even a member of the Labour Party.

Field being driven out should tell you that the inmates are running the Labour asylum as should Cooper not being in the Shadow Cabinet. The Tories would welcome Kendall with open arms if she was ever tempted.

Jumping enthusiastically aboard a sinking ship?
There is nothing Tory about Liz.

kinabalu said:

TGOHF said:

One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.

Is that your considered view about all black MPs?

If you take, for example Kwasi Kwateng and David Lammy.

I don’t go looking for speeches or comments by either of them.

But the impression I get is that Kwasi competes on ideas (often impractical but always interesting) while Lammy focuses on his genetic characteristics (race)

It seems a shame, and limiting, to focus on what cannot be changed and trying to manage the consequences vs trying to improve life for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

TGOHF said:

One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.

Is that your considered view about all black MPs?

If you take, for example Kwasi Kwateng and David Lammy.

I don’t go looking for speeches or comments by either of them.

But the impression I get is that Kwasi competes on ideas (often impractical but always interesting) while Lammy focuses on his genetic characteristics (race)

It seems a shame, and limiting, to focus on what cannot be changed and trying to manage the consequences vs trying to improve life for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity

Lammy represents an electorate which has one of the highest black populations in the country. He sees himself as speaking for that community especially (though not exclusively) and so what?

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

The Tories would welcome Kendall with open arms if she was ever tempted.

That doesn't mean she's 'quality.' I mean, they keeep Francois and Fabricant on for reasons that continue to defy logic.

They made the candidate selection list and have more support from their constituencies than say, Grieve or Gauke. Try telling May or Lewis or their electorates that they have no place in HoC and see what reaction you get. That’s democracy - we don’t always get our own way!

And they're still rubbish.

Kwasi Kwateng went to Eton. That is character forming.

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

The Tories would welcome Kendall with open arms if she was ever tempted.

That doesn't mean she's 'quality.' I mean, they keeep Francois and Fabricant on for reasons that continue to defy logic.

They made the candidate selection list and have more support from their constituencies than say, Grieve or Gauke. Try telling May or Lewis or their electorates that they have no place in HoC and see what reaction you get. That’s democracy - we don’t always get our own way!

And they're still rubbish.

In your opinion. I don’t think that will worry them too much.

How could anyone look objectively at those two and think they're not rubbish? Leaving aside their bizarre convolutions over Brexit, what have either ever actually done?

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

Frank Field is every Tory's favourite Labour MP. Something about him seems to really appeal.

Which is in some ways quite strange. Field is an expert on welfare policy. He really knows this area in a way few backbenchers understand anything. He also takes a very dim view of the Tory policy.

Given the disaster that is universal credit, I don't see why those two are mutually exclusive.

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

Frank Field is every Tory's favourite Labour MP. Something about him seems to really appeal.

Which is in some ways quite strange. Field is an expert on welfare policy. He really knows this area in a way few backbenchers understand anything. He also takes a very dim view of the Tory policy.

The policy as originally intended was good. Then the Treasury turned it into a cost-cutting exercise.

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

ydoethur said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

The Tories would welcome Kendall with open arms if she was ever tempted.

That doesn't mean she's 'quality.' I mean, they keeep Francois and Fabricant on for reasons that continue to defy logic.

They made the candidate selection list and have more support from their constituencies than say, Grieve or Gauke. Try telling May or Lewis or their electorates that they have no place in HoC and see what reaction you get. That’s democracy - we don’t always get our own way!

And they're still rubbish.

In your opinion. I don’t think that will worry them too much.

How could anyone look objectively at those two and think they're not rubbish? Leaving aside their bizarre convolutions over Brexit, what have either ever actually done?

People have different values and opinions and the right to express them - at least until Corbyn and Watson get in and start censoring the press! Your opinion on Francois and Fabricant is clearly not shared by CCHQ or their constituency associations or their electorates. Frankly, I’d take them both in preference to anything Labour has to offer other than the 3 individuals I previously mentioned.

Fabricant's profile and standing in Lichfield are comparable to Liz Kendall's in Leicester West.

kinabalu said:

Frank Field is every Tory's favourite Labour MP. Something about him seems to really appeal.

The fact that he is rightwing is probably part of it.

Looking to the locals where are May, Corbyn and cable campaigning?

This is becoming something of an obsession, Mike. Those Remain supporters are already voting Labour. Alastair's article a couple of weeks ago showed that the seats Labour needs to win are in Leave-voting small towns.

Gardenwalker said:

Thayer5 said:

The curse of nominal determinism strikes again.

https://twitter.com/bigleaguepol/status/1122901360192761856

“In the days and weeks ahead, I will share my full story with the nation,” his post finished.

Because it’s a perfectly normal thing to do when you’ve been sexually assaulted to spin it out into some kind of box set entertainment for the media.

That ‘not believing the ‘victim’’ thing caught on quick!

justin124 said:

Thatcher and Field were good friends - and she also got on well with Eric Heffer.

Thatcher and Heffer does seem an odd friendship! Mind you, I gather that Jess Phillips and Jacob Rees Mogg are verging on besotted. Really hard to get my mind around that.

The only things you need to know about Heffer are in either or the Benn or Crossland diaries. Can't recall where, but just skip through and its obvious.

viewcode said:

AmpfieldAndy said:

GOT Battle for Winterfell - fantastic

Are we allowed to talk spoilers? I don't even know if we're allowed to talk about the Batman vs Superman fight in Avengers: Endgame yet...

Well.....

F

justin124 said:

kinabalu said:

Frank Field is every Tory's favourite Labour MP. Something about him seems to really appeal.

Thatcher and Field were good friends - and she also got on well with Eric Heffer.

She also stayed in touch with Eric Heffer’s widow, which speaks well of both of them.

@NickPalmer has often commented on cross-party friendships. I think the better of those who do. It shows that they see past the label to the person underneath.

El_Capitano said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

nichomar said:

Looking to the locals where are May, Corbyn and cable campaigning?

Cable was in the Cotswolds today. Council is currently CON 22 LD 12.

Cotswold DC is a quiet Lib Dem success story. I wouldn't put it past them taking control one day, though not this year. It's a sign of where affluent, educated rural areas within the ambit of London are moving - which means that "shire Tories" may not be such a bedrock in the future.

Cotswolds was one of the few non-metropolitan areas to vote remain.

My own small town of Winchcombe might be an example of the the trend to which you are referring. I don't take soundings but it feels kind of remainy. Will be interesting to see how the LDs do in the vote on Thursday.

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

TGOHF said:

One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.

Is that your considered view about all black MPs?

If you take, for example Kwasi Kwateng and David Lammy.

I don’t go looking for speeches or comments by either of them.

But the impression I get is that Kwasi competes on ideas (often impractical but always interesting) while Lammy focuses on his genetic characteristics (race)

It seems a shame, and limiting, to focus on what cannot be changed and trying to manage the consequences vs trying to improve life for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity

Lammy represents an electorate which has one of the highest black populations in the country. He sees himself as speaking for that community especially (though not exclusively) and so what?

Too often he comes across as giving the impression that his constituents are perpetual victims without any agency. Clearly we need to ensure equality of opportunity but too often he gives the impression that they are powerless to improve their own position in life

HYUFD said:

El_Capitano said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

nichomar said:

Looking to the locals where are May, Corbyn and cable campaigning?

Cable was in the Cotswolds today. Council is currently CON 22 LD 12.

Cotswold DC is a quiet Lib Dem success story. I wouldn't put it past them taking control one day, though not this year. It's a sign of where affluent, educated rural areas within the ambit of London are moving - which means that "shire Tories" may not be such a bedrock in the future.

A few rural affluent areas like Cotswold and Abingdon voted Remain and are moving LD but the vast majority of rural areas voted Leave and are still solid Tory (but probably Brexit Party in the Euros).

The Tories have also picked up a few Leave voting industrial areas like Mansfield and Walsall to make up for Remain rural areas lost

Was talking to someone who is campaigning in Mansfield.

He reckons Tories will consolidate their gains. Even in the current climate.

Charles said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

TGOHF said:

One trick pony - vote for me I'm black like you.

Is that your considered view about all black MPs?

If you take, for example Kwasi Kwateng and David Lammy.

I don’t go looking for speeches or comments by either of them.

But the impression I get is that Kwasi competes on ideas (often impractical but always interesting) while Lammy focuses on his genetic characteristics (race)

It seems a shame, and limiting, to focus on what cannot be changed and trying to manage the consequences vs trying to improve life for all citizens irrespective of ethnicity

Lammy represents an electorate which has one of the highest black populations in the country. He sees himself as speaking for that community especially (though not exclusively) and so what?

Too often he comes across as giving the impression that his constituents are perpetual victims without any agency. Clearly we need to ensure equality of opportunity but too often he gives the impression that they are powerless to improve their own position in life

To be a bit cheeky as Berlusconi said 'the left love poverty and every time they get in they create more of it!'

NEW THREAD