politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » House games: Where Dragons fly and swords shimmer
Comments
-
Depends on the "line" you take?Ishmael_Z said:
Heavy user, actually.malcolmg said:
Gove is certainly our Hilary, sneaky lying conniving no user.numbertwelve said:I am starting to think Gove winning the leadership is a smart bet.
If he gets to the final 2 there must surely be a chance of Boris self-destructing. Although many consider his mannerisms odd Gove does have a knack of speaking persuasively and convincingly.
As someone said on the thread last night his ‘confession’ must mean he at least thinks he’s got a chance, to be “clearing decks” early on.
Note: in many ways Boris is the British Trump and many commentators thought he would implode during the primaries, so it’s far from guaranteed, but it must at least be considered.0 -
Kiss of death...Scott_P said:1 -
Jealous that you could not make in Scotland Scott, just look wistfully wishing you were there.Scott_P said:0 -
Anyway, I must be off. Electricity permitting, the pre-qualifying tosh will be up after third practice, which I think ends at either 5 or 6pm.0
-
Vanishingly few. The whole fund management industry is a scam. A monkey with a pin and the FT could do better.Sandpit said:
Do any of these “managed” funds regularly beat a major Western index tracker over a decade or more, when their extortionate fees are taken out?rottenborough said:
Sounds like Woodford has exposed a problem with these funds investing in stuff that is not quick and easy to liquidate.malcolmg said:
Yes some of them are a bit incestuous. I have a big spread of different types so hopefully will not become a big issue.rottenborough said:
Could be a bigger issue if other similar funds also have liquidity issues. I see Hargreaves are starting to fret about some of their multi funds (ones that invest in other funds like Woodfords).malcolmg said:
I have some money in it but not enough to be a big issue , only about £10KYorkcity said:Hope no one has their hard earned money in Neil Woodford's fund.
Does not look good, that they have suspended been able to take your money out.
Regulation will be tightened I suspect.0 -
So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.AndyJS said:"Corbyn to drop social mobility as Labour goal in favour of opportunity for all
Party leader says idea has failed and calls instead for social justice commission"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/08/jeremy-corbyn-to-drop-social-mobility-as-labour-goal0 -
Why do Lannisters have big beds?
They put two twins together to make a king.0 -
Ho ho. Trust and Tory are alien concepts.Yorkcity said:
Boris should have been Conservative leader after the referendum in 2016.AndyJS said:Good morning. Recent endorsements: Owen Paterson and Michael Fallon for Boris Johnson.
What Michael Gove did at the very last moment precludes him from any sense of trust.0 -
Yes, let’s copy Russia. A beacon to the world.Sunil_Prasannan said:0 -
They are desperate to ram it down Scotland's throat as well, always manage to book some bollox when any major Scottish event is on.StuartDickson said:0 -
Has Dominic Raab'ed you up the wrong way?numbertwelve said:
Kiss of death...Scott_P said:
0 -
Indeed. Not sure what the odds are now, but it used to be 13.4m to one on six numbers from 49, with 50% of total stakes returned, 30% to the good causes, 10% in tax to the Treasury and 10% to the operator.numbertwelve said:
I was quite young then but I do remember the first draw and how excited everyone was about having a ticket. Took a while for reality to hit that the odds were minuscule...Sandpit said:
Correct, the National Lottery was John Major’s achievement, not Thatcher’s. Launched in 1994.williamglenn said:
I don't think that's quite right. The National Lottery was introduced by John Major's government after a manifesto commitment in 1992.StuartDickson said:Indeed, Thatcher was the beginning of the end. She was not a conservative, she was a revolutionary.
There are many examples of her animosity towards conservatism, but funnily enough one of her very late introductions sticks in my mind: the National Lottery. She, quite rightly, resisted the suggestion for a decade, but caved in in the end. The Big State, week in week out fleeces the absolute poorest people in society. It is a National Disgrace and a National Shame. Of course charlatan Blair loved it too.
A true conservative would abolish the National Lottery, ban the gambling industry from advertising, and protect the vulnerable from one of society’s most persistent evils.
http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1992/1992-conservative-manifesto.shtml
As a form of gambling it’s much worse odds than most others, but seeing someone on TV every week with a million-pound cheque, and money going to things like the Olympics and our athletes helps somewhat with their marketing.0 -
At present there is little sign that anyone is tiring of the SNP, the opposition are really dire. My guess if they did it would be to a new independence party fed up waiting for the referendum.malcolmg said:
At some point people will get tired of the SNP - it's a pretty iron law of politics. Who do you expect to be the beneficiaries? (Genuine question.)NickPalmer said:
Not at all it was sheer luck. Lib Dems vanquished and Labour destroying themselves gave them a temporary boost. Her single policy , "No referendum" is a busted flush now and she is invisible and circling the drain.malcolmg said:
I agree about Boris - don't know about Gove. I know you won't agree but Ruth's achievement in leading the Tories to second place in Scotland is truly one of the brightest features of the party's fortunes in decades.
PS: they are also rans in Scotland , miles and miles behind and no hope of ever being in charge, hardly success.
I cannot imagine the Tories getting beyond a small fixed base and there is no sign that Labour can ever recover , they are just so bad. Only hope for Labour and Tories is to become a Scottish party rather than just message boys for London. Lib Dems are also rans as well. Why Labour did not support independence I will never know, they would have cleaned up afterwards but preferred to destroy themselves instead.
For me nothing will change till after independence and then the SNP will split.
Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.0 -
Exactly my intention. As soon as we achieve independence I’m out the door. The SNP is simply a tool, a wedge, for regaining national sovereignty. Once that’s done I’ll be chucking out the tool and helping to build a new centre-right force in the country.malcolmg said:
At present there is little sign that anyone is tiring of the SNP, the opposition are really dire. My guess if they did it would be to a new independence party fed up waiting for the referendum.NickPalmer said:At some point people will get tired of the SNP - it's a pretty iron law of politics. Who do you expect to be the beneficiaries? (Genuine question.)
I cannot imagine the Tories getting beyond a small fixed base and there is no sign that Labour can ever recover , they are just so bad. Only hope for Labour and Tories is to become a Scottish party rather than just message boys for London. Lib Dems are also rans as well. Why Labour did not support independence I will never know, they would have cleaned up afterwards but preferred to destroy themselves instead.
For me nothing will change till after independence and then the SNP will split.
Up until then it is SNP all the way for me and a growing section of Scottish society.
In regard to Nick Palmer ex MPs question: Lib Dems and Greens. SCons and SLab are spent forces, unless and until one of them breaks off with their London masters. Which ain’t gonna happen.0 -
Not ready to acknowledge the fact you claimed Thatcher introduced it was completely wrong?StuartDickson said:“John Major is often credited with bringing in the National Lottery, but it was Sir Ivan Lawrence who kickstarted the ball-dropping enterprise.
He explained the background to his 1991 Private Member's Bill and why Margaret Thatcher was far from keen on the enterprise.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-15027222/national-lottery-sir-ivan-lawrence-on-margaret-thatcher-s-doubts0 -
He’s still lurking just too busy to postTabman said:
That's very sad to hearTheuniondivvie said:
I'm sure SeanT would be able to suggest someone that fits the bill. Such a shame he's no longer around.MarqueeMark said:I'm holding out for a Tory contender who admits to having done Ketamine.
In a brothel.0 -
Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.Alistair said:
At present there is little sign that anyone is tiring of the SNP, the opposition are really dire. My guess if they did it would be to a new independence party fed up waiting for the referendum.malcolmg said:
At some point people will get tired of the SNP - it's a pretty iron law of politics. Who do you expect to be the beneficiaries? (Genuine question.)NickPalmer said:
Not at all it was sheer luck. Lib Dems vanquished and Labour destroying themselves gave them a temporary boost. Her single policy , "No referendum" is a busted flush now and she is invisible and circling the drain.malcolmg said:
I agree about Boris - don't know about Gove. I know you won't agree but Ruth's achievement in leading the Tories to second place in Scotland is truly one of the brightest features of the party's fortunes in decades.
PS: they are also rans in Scotland , miles and miles behind and no hope of ever being in charge, hardly success.
I cannot imagine the Tories getting beyond a small fixed base and there is no sign that Labour can ever recover , they are just so bad. Only hope for Labour and Tories is to become a Scottish party rather than just message boys for London. Lib Dems are also rans as well. Why Labour did not support independence I will never know, they would have cleaned up afterwards but preferred to destroy themselves instead.
For me nothing will change till after independence and then the SNP will split.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
That is because they are really really stupid.0 -
I’ve been pointing this out for years, but I’m afraid that PB Tories always know best.Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
0 -
Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.Alistair said:
At present there is little sign that anyone is tiring of the SNP, the opposition are really dire. My guess if they did it would be to a new independence party fed up waiting for the referendum.malcolmg said:
At some point people will get tired of the SNP - it's a pretty iron law of politics. Who do you expect to be the beneficiaries? (Genuine question.)NickPalmer said:
Not at all it was sheer luck. Lib Dems vanquished and Labour destroying themselves gave them a temporary boost. Her single policy , "No referendum" is a busted flush now and she is invisible and circling the drain.malcolmg said:
I agree about Boris - don't know about Gove. I know you won't agree but Ruth's achievement in leading the Tories to second place in Scotland is truly one of the brightest features of the party's fortunes in decades.
PS: they are also rans in Scotland , miles and miles behind and no hope of ever being in charge, hardly success.
I cannot imagine the Tories getting beyond a small fixed base and there is no sign that Labour can ever recover , they are just so bad. Only hope for Labour and Tories is to become a Scottish party rather than just message boys for London. Lib Dems are also rans as well. Why Labour did not support independence I will never know, they would have cleaned up afterwards but preferred to destroy themselves instead.
For me nothing will change till after independence and then the SNP will split.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
As I said hard to understand Labour thinking , they would most likely be running Scotland now if they had had anyone with enough brain cells to work out that independence would be great for them. Instead tribal hatred of the SNP has led them to destroy themselves.0 -
The mistake Freedland made is that Conservative doesn’t mean status quo - it is value driven. Sometimes you must reform to preserve.rottenborough said:Goodwin in Telegraph:
"One of the peculiarities of Britain is that once you step outside of London and the university towns this remains an instinctively conservative nation. Yet at the same time it has a Conservative Party that is afraid of being conservative."
"Yet winning back these voters would not be hard. It requires a Conservative Party to do what it says on the tin"0 -
In Italy, it's 25th AprilStuartDickson said:
Yes, let’s copy Russia. A beacon to the world.Sunil_Prasannan said:
In Denmark it's 4th May
Netherlands 5th May
France, Czechia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia 8th May
Serbia and Ukraine 9th May (like Russia)
I believe only for next year (VE 75) that the UK May Day bank holiday is to be moved to the 8th.
1 -
Firstly, letting Scotland become independent to destroy the SNP is like curing a headache by decapitating yourself. Secondly, history tends to show us that parties that successfully win independence hang round for a long time. Witness India (INC in government for 49 years), South Africa (ANC wins more than 55% of the vote in every election since 1994), Ireland (Fianna Fail largest party in every election between 1932 and 2007).Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
0 -
Scottish independence would also be great news for the broad forces of the right and centre right (Tories, DUP and I guess now Brexit Party) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.StuartDickson said:
I’ve been pointing this out for years, but I’m afraid that PB Tories always know best.Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
Even if you add the Lib Dems to that the high point (And it does look like a high point) for parties who might ever consider caucusing in a centre-right Gov't was 17/59 seats at the last GE.
In most parliaments you're looking at least at a solid 45/59 seats (& probably more) that'll never caucus with the Tories or Farage's latest incarnation.
0 -
Exactly - drag everyone bar the party faithful into poverty.Sandpit said:
So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.AndyJS said:"Corbyn to drop social mobility as Labour goal in favour of opportunity for all
Party leader says idea has failed and calls instead for social justice commission"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/08/jeremy-corbyn-to-drop-social-mobility-as-labour-goal0 -
Not for the question asked, the Tories and Labour will never amount to anything whilst Scotland is in the union and they are London regional sub offices. The direction is obvious and it is only a matter of when independence comes not if it will come. Better to be leading the charge than being trampled at the back.Chelyabinsk said:
Firstly, letting Scotland become independent to destroy the SNP is like curing a headache by decapitaing yourself. Secondly, history tends to show us that parties that successfully win independence hang round for a long time. Witness India (INC in government for 49 years), South Africa (ANC wins more than 55% of the vote in every election since 1994), Ireland (Fianna Fail largest party in every election between 1932 and 2007).Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.0 -
As far as one can understand, there’s a determination to ensure average = deemed success. And so the thick shall inherit the earth.Sandpit said:
So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.AndyJS said:"Corbyn to drop social mobility as Labour goal in favour of opportunity for all
Party leader says idea has failed and calls instead for social justice commission"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/08/jeremy-corbyn-to-drop-social-mobility-as-labour-goal0 -
Would MV3 have passed without Scottish MPs voting?Pulpstar said:
Scottish independence would also be great news for the broad forces of the right and centre right (Tories, DUP and I guess now Brexit Party) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.StuartDickson said:
I’ve been pointing this out for years, but I’m afraid that PB Tories always know best.Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
Even if you add the Lib Dems to that the high point (And it does look like a high point) for parties who might ever consider caucusing in a centre-right Gov't was 17/59 seats at the last GE.
In most parliaments you're looking at least at a solid 45/59 seats (& probably more) that'll never caucus with the Tories or Farage's latest incarnation.0 -
Noes 344tlg86 said:
Would MV3 have passed without Scottish MPs voting?Pulpstar said:
Scottish independence would also be great news for the broad forces of the right and centre right (Tories, DUP and I guess now Brexit Party) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.StuartDickson said:
I’ve been pointing this out for years, but I’m afraid that PB Tories always know best.Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
Even if you add the Lib Dems to that the high point (And it does look like a high point) for parties who might ever consider caucusing in a centre-right Gov't was 17/59 seats at the last GE.
In most parliaments you're looking at least at a solid 45/59 seats (& probably more) that'll never caucus with the Tories or Farage's latest incarnation.
Less SNP 34 less 7 Lab Less 4 Lib Dem
Ayes 286
Less 13 Tories
So 299 - 273 I think a defeat of 26.
Ken Clarke's Custom Union would have passed though in the indicative votes.0 -
0
-
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.0 -
These 75th year commemorations will probably be the last ever of any major scale. Those remaining veterans are all in their 90s and none will be around for the centenary.AndyJS said:
I think we're becoming over-obsessed with the second world war. Not healthy.Scott_P said:
No harm in paying tribute to our grandparents and great grandparents for the sacrifices they made one last time.
The May day bank holiday is quite the most pointless bank holiday of the year by far in terms of timing (often a week or so after easter and 3 weeks before another) with usually bad weather but without the extra daylight of the late May version. So at least next year it will have some significance!0 -
I watched her on TV a few weeks ago and came to the conclusion she is a Brexit ideologue coupled with not being very intellegent. Given her inability to articulate any form of viable message, I wonder how on earth she got selected!numbertwelve said:
Kiss of death...Scott_P said:1 -
The break up of the UK would create entirely new political dynamics, so I don't think you can simply look at current voting patterns and imagine they would reflect the future reality if we were separate nations.Pulpstar said:
Scottish independence would also be great news for the broad forces of the right and centre right (Tories, DUP and I guess now Brexit Party) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.StuartDickson said:
I’ve been pointing this out for years, but I’m afraid that PB Tories always know best.Alistair said:Split? After independence the SNP will shatter. It will be a total mess.
It's amazing that people who seem dedicated to destroying the SNP haven't worked out the best approach would be for Scotland to become independent.
Even if you add the Lib Dems to that the high point (And it does look like a high point) for parties who might ever consider caucusing in a centre-right Gov't was 17/59 seats at the last GE.
In most parliaments you're looking at least at a solid 45/59 seats (& probably more) that'll never caucus with the Tories or Farage's latest incarnation.0 -
Seems perfectly reasonable use of the May bank holiday to me.brendan16 said:
These 75th year commemorations will probably be the last ever of any major scale. Those remaining veterans are all in their 90s and none will be around for the centenary.AndyJS said:
I think we're becoming over-obsessed with the second world war. Not healthy.Scott_P said:
No harm in paying tribute to our grandparents and great grandparents for the sacrifices they made one last time.
The May day bank holiday is quite the most pointless bank holiday of the year by far in terms of timing (often a week or so after easter and 3 weeks before another) with usually bad weather but without the extra daylight of the late May version. So at least next year it will have some significance!
I don't agree with all this guff about we are spending too much time thinking about the War. Seems to me far too many people in this country have forgotten what it was we were fighting against when you see photos of yobs doing the Hitler salute.2 -
We will find out next week if he is dominating the pack or just Dom the Bomb.Sunil_Prasannan said:
I see his website adds '2019' at the end - is he expecting www.dominicraab2020.com and www.dominicraab2021.com as well.
For a fairer Britain - run by fair haired people!0 -
Twin peaks is a good example of how the US gets (at least used to get) TV series wrong. The approach was to commission programmes open ended and continue as long as the show remains popular. In the UK a short series would be written and commissioned. If it was popluar then another short series would be supported. The classic examples are of course Fawlty Towers and Black Adder.AndyJS said:
I haven't. I usually watch TV shows about 20 years after they were famous, which is why I watched the original run of Twin Peaks recently.Sunil_Prasannan said:On thread - am I the only one here wot hasn't watched GoT?
I am vaguely aware that Captain Phasma and Qi'ra from the new Star Wars "films" are also in GoT
Twin Peaks was superb telly for the first 10 or so episodes. Once Laura Palmer's killer was revealed, the viewing figures dropped. The producers pulled the plug and the last two episodes are complete dross. I did watch the entire series again about 10 years ago and was surprised how dated it looked, as I thought the setting woud be fairly timeless.
0 -
Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html0 -
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.1 -
She was specifically chosen to beat Ed Balls.The_Taxman said:
I watched her on TV a few weeks ago and came to the conclusion she is a Brexit ideologue coupled with not being very intellegent. Given her inability to articulate any form of viable message, I wonder how on earth she got selected!numbertwelve said:
Kiss of death...Scott_P said:0 -
That could be quite an interesting development.AndyJS said:"Corbyn to drop social mobility as Labour goal in favour of opportunity for all
Party leader says idea has failed and calls instead for social justice commission"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/08/jeremy-corbyn-to-drop-social-mobility-as-labour-goal
Social mobility is not really an egalitarian concept and so I'm not surprised that Corbyn's Labour would be less than enthusiastic about it being a top priority.
Difficult to frame a realistic alternative though. It would have to involve a serious attack on birth privilege and that can run into choppy waters. We are quite wedded to birth privilege in this country, both those that have it and those that don't.0 -
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html0 -
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?HYUFD said:
Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.rottenborough said:
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support0 -
That’s for you to conclude. Given it will be couched in the now-usual SWP-speak, one can only draw inferences from past behaviors.kinabalu said:
But how far DOES one understand?matt said:As far as one can understand, there’s a determination to ensure average = deemed success. And so the thick shall inherit the earth.
0 -
Everyone wants the pie to get bigger. That is motherhood and apple pie - which is hopefully getting bigger.Philip_Thompson said:No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.
I'm not an ideologue. Unless that's your term for people who have ideas that you disagree with.
I would describe myself as a hard left social democrat.0 -
Completely agreed.rottenborough said:
Seems perfectly reasonable use of the May bank holiday to me.brendan16 said:
These 75th year commemorations will probably be the last ever of any major scale. Those remaining veterans are all in their 90s and none will be around for the centenary.AndyJS said:
I think we're becoming over-obsessed with the second world war. Not healthy.Scott_P said:
No harm in paying tribute to our grandparents and great grandparents for the sacrifices they made one last time.
The May day bank holiday is quite the most pointless bank holiday of the year by far in terms of timing (often a week or so after easter and 3 weeks before another) with usually bad weather but without the extra daylight of the late May version. So at least next year it will have some significance!
I don't agree with all this guff about we are spending too much time thinking about the War. Seems to me far too many people in this country have forgotten what it was we were fighting against when you see photos of yobs doing the Hitler salute.
When I was young, there were very few surviving WWI veterans but lots of WWII veterans. Time has moved on and now there fewer veterans left ... but rarely has it seemed more important to learn from them.
Anyone who thinks a Hitler salute is appropriate is not a patriot.0 -
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.1 -
I said months ago that MPs would find it near impossible to not put Boris through to membership given the demand for him.brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
We will see in next few days.0 -
GROW THE PIE!Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
Next Tory GE slogan sorted, landslide maj follows..0 -
Added a little to my Gove pile earlier this afternoon. I think 14 is too high given he may well make last two.1
-
Believe in the pie!Theuniondivvie said:
GROW THE PIE!Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
Next Tory GE slogan sorted, landslide maj follows..0 -
-
-
Who ate all the pies - the Tories!Chris said:
Believe in the pie!Theuniondivvie said:
GROW THE PIE!Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
Next Tory GE slogan sorted, landslide maj follows..0 -
The original idea was to make the show about the town and its population. The murder was the hook to get Agent Cooper, an eccentric outsider, in to the place. The killing was to quietly fall into the background.eristdoof said:
Twin peaks is a good example of how the US gets (at least used to get) TV series wrong. The approach was to commission programmes open ended and continue as long as the show remains popular. In the UK a short series would be written and commissioned. If it was popluar then another short series would be supported. The classic examples are of course Fawlty Towers and Black Adder.AndyJS said:
I haven't. I usually watch TV shows about 20 years after they were famous, which is why I watched the original run of Twin Peaks recently.Sunil_Prasannan said:On thread - am I the only one here wot hasn't watched GoT?
I am vaguely aware that Captain Phasma and Qi'ra from the new Star Wars "films" are also in GoT
Twin Peaks was superb telly for the first 10 or so episodes. Once Laura Palmer's killer was revealed, the viewing figures dropped. The producers pulled the plug and the last two episodes are complete dross. I did watch the entire series again about 10 years ago and was surprised how dated it looked, as I thought the setting woud be fairly timeless.
The studio insisted it be solved. They ruined it as a concept, by making it a murder mystery. The original series was written to eliminate all the possible suspects. Therefore the second series made no sense, by making it some kind of owl spirit.
As for dated. Well yes. It was so influential we've seen all kinds of stuff since which borrowed from it.0 -
If they had any foresight they would use this as a reason to become a separate party and change to a neutral position on the union.Scott_P said:0 -
You might well be right but I hope not. I'm getting tired of words words words. I will be looking for what POLICIES are proposed by Labour to reduce inequality. Significantly reduce it, I mean, not tinkering.matt said:That’s for you to conclude. Given it will be couched in the now-usual SWP-speak, one can only draw inferences from past behaviors.
And if I don't see some concrete proposals that frighten the horses in certain quarters I will conclude (sadly but firmly) that the much vaunted Corbyn & McDonnell et al are all mouth and no trousers.0 -
The OST remains excellent.dixiedean said:
The original idea was to make the show about the town and its population. The murder was the hook to get Agent Cooper, an eccentric outsider, in to the place. The killing was to quietly fall into the background.eristdoof said:
Twin peaks is a good example of how the US gets (at least used to get) TV series wrong. The approach was to commission programmes open ended and continue as long as the show remains popular. In the UK a short series would be written and commissioned. If it was popluar then another short series would be supported. The classic examples are of course Fawlty Towers and Black Adder.AndyJS said:
I haven't. I usually watch TV shows about 20 years after they were famous, which is why I watched the original run of Twin Peaks recently.Sunil_Prasannan said:On thread - am I the only one here wot hasn't watched GoT?
I am vaguely aware that Captain Phasma and Qi'ra from the new Star Wars "films" are also in GoT
Twin Peaks was superb telly for the first 10 or so episodes. Once Laura Palmer's killer was revealed, the viewing figures dropped. The producers pulled the plug and the last two episodes are complete dross. I did watch the entire series again about 10 years ago and was surprised how dated it looked, as I thought the setting woud be fairly timeless.
The studio insisted it be solved. They ruined it as a concept, by making it a murder mystery. The original series was written to eliminate all the possible suspects. Therefore the second series made no sense, by making it some kind of owl spirit.
As for dated. Well yes. It was so influential we've seen all kinds of stuff since which borrowed from it.
0 -
To be fair, there's not a whole lot the government can do to make the economy grow faster - although really dumb policies can make it grow a lot slower, or not at all. Whereas there is a lot the government can do about the distribution of income and opportunity. I would not write off Labour's ideas on this without taking a good look at them first. We have real problems in this country and more of the same stale trickle down policies won't fix them.Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.0 -
And here I thought it was supposed to be the left that put their faith in magic money trees...Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.0 -
Yes, Baker gaining ground on a straight to WTO terms ticketbrendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html0 -
As I said to Philip, bigger pie has to be a policy goal. No dispute about that.matt said:That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.
However, if we can grow the economy by liberating the talents of the many millions of people who at present are held back by birth circumstances, then that is so much better IMO than doing it any other way.
Not saying it will be easy - but I would welcome a serious attempt.0 -
In which case they would be in danger of extinction failing to win back Nationalists from the SNP while losing Unionists to the Tories and LDswilliamglenn said:
If they had any foresight they would use this as a reason to become a separate party and change to a neutral position on the union.Scott_P said:0 -
In some ways the rise of Raab and Baker as the firm No Deal candidates helps Boris to win over moderates having already shored up his Brexiteer baseOllyT said:
I would have thought that Johnson's backing from some quarters must be of grave concern to the ERG/No dealers. What is he saying in private to get that sort of backing?HYUFD said:
Boris now getting support from all wings of the party and almost as many former Remain MPs backing him as former Leave MPs, Chloe Smith from the Cameroon former Remainer wing and Owen Paterson from the No Deal, hard Brexit wing, as well as former May ally and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.rottenborough said:
Hancock and Hunt now the clear candidates of the Remain wing and Raab the clear candidate of the Leave wing of the party based on the percentage of their MP support0 -
Politics is not all black and white.HYUFD said:
In which case they would be in danger of extinction failing to win back Nationalists from the SNP while losing Unionists to the Tories and LDswilliamglenn said:
If they had any foresight they would use this as a reason to become a separate party and change to a neutral position on the union.Scott_P said:0 -
You want to listen to the callers on Any Answers...rottenborough said:Added a little to my Gove pile earlier this afternoon. I think 14 is too high given he may well make last two.
0 -
That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.kinabalu said:
You might well be right but I hope not. I'm getting tired of words words words. I will be looking for what POLICIES are proposed by Labour to reduce inequality. Significantly reduce it, I mean, not tinkering.matt said:That’s for you to conclude. Given it will be couched in the now-usual SWP-speak, one can only draw inferences from past behaviors.
And if I don't see some concrete proposals that frighten the horses in certain quarters I will conclude (sadly but firmly) that the much vaunted Corbyn & McDonnell et al are all mouth and no trousers.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.0 -
"The meat in the sausage has got to be Conservative."Chris said:
Believe in the pie!Theuniondivvie said:
GROW THE PIE!Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
Next Tory GE slogan sorted, landslide maj follows..
- Boris interview with Jeremy Paxman, 7 May 20100 -
And with 4-5 MPs support, 1.3% of the members first choice max lies Leadsom with a 10% chance according to Betfair...brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
I've only ever had more money opposing Marine Le Pen in the French 2nd round.0 -
Q. What's Jeremy Corbyn's favourite chocolate box?
A. Inequality Street!0 -
Made it back without having to leave anyone behind. Win.
I was thinking about the road not taken in this race, even though he strikes me as an unserious candidate for PM, one does wonder what private pike's path would have been had he resigned on principle wrt the Huawei decision. I think it would have marked him out as someone to take seriously, which he clearly isn't and it may even have brought May down as more of the Cabinet would have rebelled on that idiotic decision (one which the next leader is sure to overturn).
He would definitely be in the running now and probay be competing with Raab for biggest idiot in the contest.0 -
"During the 2017 election campaign his local campaign leaflet went viral in the UK due to its slogan 'unwanted, unnecessary, opportunistic' which was supposed to be about the snap election called by Theresa May, but appeared to be referring to Godsiff himself." - Wikipediawilliamglenn said:0 -
Economic growth is magic?Stereotomy said:
And here I thought it was supposed to be the left that put their faith in magic money trees...Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
UK GDP per capita $39,720
Venezuela GDP per capita $15,692
Australia GDP per capita $53,800
No magic.1 -
Believe in the meat in Boris's sausage!Sunil_Prasannan said:
"The meat in the sausage has got to be Conservative."Chris said:
Believe in the pie!Theuniondivvie said:
GROW THE PIE!Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
Next Tory GE slogan sorted, landslide maj follows..
- Boris interview with Jeremy Paxman, 7 May 20100 -
To answer this question properly there needs to be a shared understanding of rich.matt said:
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
If rich is doctors, senior managers, IT professionals, head teachers earning £80k-200k I would agree with those saying we should not actively make them poorer (whether through redistribution or no-deal!!).
If rich is FTSE 100 directors, top flight footballers, businesspeople who buy companies to make them bankrupt and take the assets, foreign oligarchs with dubious sources of wealth I think we definitely should be seeking to make them poorer and pay a greater share, as in each case the market is not efficient or fair in awarding them their share of the pie.0 -
-
England running away with it in the cricket, with a massive 386-6 from their 50 overs.
4% return available on Betfair if you can’t see the Banglas making those runs, much better than leaving it in the bank for the afternoon.0 -
Look at the result in his seat in 2010. He knows which side his bread is buttered on.williamglenn said:0 -
can you imagine the mayhem if there are 70 undeclared Leadsom backers, one for each hour between now and Monday?Pulpstar said:
And with 4-5 MPs support, 1.3% of the members first choice max lies Leadsom with a 10% chance according to Betfair...brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
I've only ever had more money opposing Marine Le Pen in the French 2nd round.0 -
How many mothers have declared thus far?TheWhiteRabbit said:
can you imagine the mayhem if there are 70 undeclared Leadsom backers, one for each hour between now and Monday?Pulpstar said:
And with 4-5 MPs support, 1.3% of the members first choice max lies Leadsom with a 10% chance according to Betfair...brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
I've only ever had more money opposing Marine Le Pen in the French 2nd round.0 -
I have been reflecting on this week's emotional ceremonies commemorating the 75th D Day anniversary. Older contributors may wish to correct me, but I do not recall such ceremonies being held back in 1964 , 1969 - or indeed 1974 - to honour the sacrifices made at the time of the 20th , 25th or 30th anniversaries. If so, I fail to understand why that did not happen - particularly as many leading participants such as Eisenhower and,Montgomery -to name but two - were still alive and able to share their memories. Unless I am mistaken, it was not until 1984 - and the 40th anniversary - that we saw ceremonies on such a scale.0
-
Additionally, I've decided I'm going to give Vilnius a 4.5/5 on our rating system. It has the Euro, it's got a direct flight to City airport, it's safe, it's cheap, it's got cheap rents, the regulations aren't gold plated by the government and I think that people will be ok to move here for months at a time.
The only downside is that there is no direct flight to Tokyo, but hopefully if we can convince our other peers to follow us one will spring up.1 -
I'd rather not !TheWhiteRabbit said:
can you imagine the mayhem if there are 70 undeclared Leadsom backers, one for each hour between now and Monday?Pulpstar said:
And with 4-5 MPs support, 1.3% of the members first choice max lies Leadsom with a 10% chance according to Betfair...brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
I've only ever had more money opposing Marine Le Pen in the French 2nd round.1 -
As Labour’s income tax policy suggests they believe anyone earning over, I recall, £80k is deemed the rich, I think that an inference can be easily drawn. Further I note that amount is greater than an MPs salary. Coincidence?noneoftheabove said:
To answer this question properly there needs to be a shared understanding of rich.matt said:
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
If rich is doctors, senior managers, IT professionals, head teachers earning £80k-200k I would agree with those saying we should not actively make them poorer (whether through redistribution or no-deal!!).
If rich is FTSE 100 directors, top flight footballers, businesspeople who buy companies to make them bankrupt and take the assets, foreign oligarchs with dubious sources of wealth I think we definitely should be seeking to make them poorer and pay a greater share, as in each case the market is not efficient or fair in awarding them their share of the pie.0 -
Step 1: Let the ultra-rich grow their wealth more and more without doing anything to earn it, foreverPhilip_Thompson said:
Economic growth is magic?Stereotomy said:
And here I thought it was supposed to be the left that put their faith in magic money trees...Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
UK GDP per capita $39,720
Venezuela GDP per capita $15,692
Australia GDP per capita $53,800
No magic.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Prosperity for all1 -
Wasn't it lower than that?matt said:
As Labour’s income tax policy suggests they believe anyone earning over, I recall, £80k is deemed the rich, I think that an inference can be easily drawn. Further I note that amount is greater than an MPs salary. Coincidence?noneoftheabove said:
To answer this question properly there needs to be a shared understanding of rich.matt said:
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
If rich is doctors, senior managers, IT professionals, head teachers earning £80k-200k I would agree with those saying we should not actively make them poorer (whether through redistribution or no-deal!!).
If rich is FTSE 100 directors, top flight footballers, businesspeople who buy companies to make them bankrupt and take the assets, foreign oligarchs with dubious sources of wealth I think we definitely should be seeking to make them poorer and pay a greater share, as in each case the market is not efficient or fair in awarding them their share of the pie.0 -
So what do you suggest?Stereotomy said:
Step 1: Let the ultra-rich grow their wealth more and more without doing anything to earn it, foreverPhilip_Thompson said:
Economic growth is magic?Stereotomy said:
And here I thought it was supposed to be the left that put their faith in magic money trees...Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
UK GDP per capita $39,720
Venezuela GDP per capita $15,692
Australia GDP per capita $53,800
No magic.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Prosperity for all0 -
The old -412 nexct to her name suggests me neither...Pulpstar said:
I'd rather not !TheWhiteRabbit said:
can you imagine the mayhem if there are 70 undeclared Leadsom backers, one for each hour between now and Monday?Pulpstar said:
And with 4-5 MPs support, 1.3% of the members first choice max lies Leadsom with a 10% chance according to Betfair...brendan16 said:
And Steve Baker beats Javid, Hancock and even Hunt on that poll!HYUFD said:Boris Johnson takes a huge 30% lead in snap new Conservative Home Tory members next Tory leader poll on 42%. Gove second on 12% and Raab third on 10%. Rory Stewart beats Hunt and Hancock to be the top Remainer and takes 4th place on 8% with Steve Baker 5th
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/06/conhomes-snap-leadership-election-survey-johnson-puts-on-ten-points-and-bestrides-our-table-like-a-colossus.html
I've only ever had more money opposing Marine Le Pen in the French 2nd round.
Actually also my biggest net exposure since Le Pen. Or perhaps ever, I can't remember what Trump's competitors were after Florida.0 -
Not to mention that after a few years of socialist inflation and fiscal drag, £80k will be less than average earnings and heading for the minimum wage.matt said:
As Labour’s income tax policy suggests they believe anyone earning over, I recall, £80k is deemed the rich, I think that an inference can be easily drawn. Further I note that amount is greater than an MPs salary. Coincidence?noneoftheabove said:
To answer this question properly there needs to be a shared understanding of rich.matt said:
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
If rich is doctors, senior managers, IT professionals, head teachers earning £80k-200k I would agree with those saying we should not actively make them poorer (whether through redistribution or no-deal!!).
If rich is FTSE 100 directors, top flight footballers, businesspeople who buy companies to make them bankrupt and take the assets, foreign oligarchs with dubious sources of wealth I think we definitely should be seeking to make them poorer and pay a greater share, as in each case the market is not efficient or fair in awarding them their share of the pie.0 -
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.another_richard said:That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property.
2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions.
3. Social care part funded by higher IHT.
4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.0 -
Almost all businesspeople invest their own funds, blood, sweat and tears to make their businesses work. Asset strippers are the exception not the rule.noneoftheabove said:
To answer this question properly there needs to be a shared understanding of rich.matt said:
That’s the tedious zero-sum game. Rather than making the pie bigger, focus on increasingly baroque ways of dividing the current pie.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
If rich is doctors, senior managers, IT professionals, head teachers earning £80k-200k I would agree with those saying we should not actively make them poorer (whether through redistribution or no-deal!!).
If rich is FTSE 100 directors, top flight footballers, businesspeople who buy companies to make them bankrupt and take the assets, foreign oligarchs with dubious sources of wealth I think we definitely should be seeking to make them poorer and pay a greater share, as in each case the market is not efficient or fair in awarding them their share of the pie.
How does making footballers like Virgil van Dijk or Mo Salah poorer make our economy more efficient? Considering that Liverpool are getting great success in being the Champions of Europe and indeed all 4 European finalists were English how would driving talent like that out of the country improve our economy?
Liverpool with Salah, Van Dijk etc aren't just getting success on the field but are a financial success too making record profits drawing in income from across Europe and the world. So the players are more than justifying their wages.
Their success hasn't just improved the gaiety of the nation via their fans but economically their success helps businesses and other individuals across the country too.
Finally of course the country takes massive taxes from footballers, clubs etc
So please explain how actively seeking to make Mo Salah poorer would make the nation more efficient.1 -
Would you rather be in the bottom 10 percentile of Britain, Venezuela or Australia?Stereotomy said:
Step 1: Let the ultra-rich grow their wealth more and more without doing anything to earn it, foreverPhilip_Thompson said:
Economic growth is magic?Stereotomy said:
And here I thought it was supposed to be the left that put their faith in magic money trees...Philip_Thompson said:
No you don't. You need to be be willing to grow the pie so that all get richer. The fact that ideologues like you still don't get that is tragic.kinabalu said:
I think it's more that if you're serious about making the poor richer you have to be WILLING (if necessary) to make the rich poorer.Sandpit said:So he’s back to thinking that making the rich poorer is more important than making the poor richer.
It would be better if you can achieve it without doing that - but it might not be possible.
UK GDP per capita $39,720
Venezuela GDP per capita $15,692
Australia GDP per capita $53,800
No magic.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Prosperity for all0 -
1. You've just created a massive disincentive for older people to sell up and downsize, exacerbating the housing crisis foe younger families.kinabalu said:
Yes, you have to define something very precisely if your whole mission is to have a big impact on it. And although a targeted hike to tax & spend is great, you need more than that.another_richard said:That also depends by how you describe 'inequality'.
In London it would be the difference between the extreme rich and the poor.
In much of the country it would be the difference between property owners and renters.
Then there is the inequality in employment and educational opportunities between deprived areas and average areas.
Not forgetting generational inequality.
And as inequality takes different forms then policies to reduce it will also need to be different.
So if a Labour government focuses on 'London type inequality' it much have no effect in reducing other forms of inequality and may instead worsen them.
4 from me that I am hoping to see in the Labour manifesto -
1. CGT on sales of residential property.
2. Decentralized state bank to boost investment in the regions.
3. Social care part funded by higher IHT.
4. Heavily dis-incentivize private education.
Any of those grab you? - in a good way, I mean.
2. We've just managed to get rid out state ownership of banks, it didn't go well.
3. You've just pushed more people into tax planning, causing a reduction in actual tax take.
4. Who pays for all of the additional pupils who's parents now decide that can't or won't send their kids to private school?
As always with the left, policies that sounds good but will wreck the economy (and in this case the education sector).1
