Seasonal factors and the timing of general elections – politicalbetting.com

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

What on Earth have you been taking?

He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.

You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.

So did Berlusconi. So what?

Berlusconi was a leader for years too. So what?

So notoriety fails to correlate with personal or political merit.

Quite the opposite.

I suspect notoriety is positively correlated with leadership.

Being a world leader isn't about "merit", personal or otherwise, and notoriety can certainly be gained from leadership.

Converging rather rapidly on der Fuehrerprinzip here.

As I said its not a moral judgement on good or bad leadership. There's no question that Hitler was a world leader too.

He was an awful, hideous world leader but he absolutely was one.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Northern_Al said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?

But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.

Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.

Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.

Strategy is clear.

Tax rises now.
Tax cuts before election.

Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
- health (an insatiable maw)
- education
- defence

Sounds about right.

And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.

Well, it’s baked in.

Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.

Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19

That kind of data just isn’t robust

Q “Should the wealthy pay more tax?”

People think “I’m not wealthy. Should other people pay more tax? That sounds like a plan”

Gardenwalker said:

Boris is a joke.

Just like Trump, Berlusconi, and that Toronto Mayor who was on the crackpipe.

All of them surprisingly popular despite or perhaps because of their clown-act.

None of this has much to do with Nandy herself, except that I think - apart from Nandy being smarter and more charismatic than Keir - Boris would likely struggle (even) more against a female opponent.

I am sorry but Nandy is not smarter than Sir Keir, he may be dull as dishwasher but he does have a degree from Oxbridge unlike her and had a major job before being an MP as Head of the CPS unlike her. Nandy was just a researcher before becoming an MP.

I don't personally dislike Nandy but she is a complete lightweight when you are talking about a potential PM. If you want a female opponent for Boris Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall would be far better and far tougher for Boris to face than Nandy but then Labour rejected them in 2015 as it rejected Nandy in 2020, Labour does not like female leaders, that is clear. Rachel Reeves would also be a far more heavyweight threat than Nandy

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

What on Earth have you been taking?

He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.

You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.

Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.

But leading is about getting publicity.

Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.

But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

Which isn’t going to end happily.

What are the issues he's led on and how have they worked out?

London - the Olympics were a success.

Brexit Campaign - he won against all expectations.

Brexit Negotiations - he got a new deal without the backstop that almost everyone except myself said was impossible to get.

Trade Negotiations - he got a new deal with Barnier and von der Leyen folding on almost every disputed issue in the end.

Northern Ireland - Managed to get Article 16 into the Brexit Negotiations which is now being used to ratchet an even better agreement despite Ireland and Europe's misgivings.

Covid - First major country in the world to have vaccines. First country in Europe to lift all legal restrictions.

No doubt you could draw up a similar list spinning everything I have written as good as bad. But that's a difference of opinion not a matter of fact.

Boris had nothing to do with the success of the olympics.

He may have won the Brexit campaign, but he did so for purely self-interested reasons and helping us shoot ourselves in the foot is not to his credit.

Trade negotiations - ha ha ha. At least you have a sense of humour.

Northern Ireland - in the medium term, reunification looks like the most likely outcome.

Covid - vaccination went well because those close to him told him to keep well away, to avoid another trademark Bozo fuckup.

Cookie said:

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

'English people want to bring back mask wearing and social distancing'



https://tinyurl.com/nhytv2m5

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

Boris is certainly a heavy weight. The rest of your post is tosh.

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Northern_Al said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?

But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.

Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.

Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.

Strategy is clear.

Tax rises now.
Tax cuts before election.

Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
- health (an insatiable maw)
- education
- defence

Sounds about right.

And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.

Well, it’s baked in.

Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.

Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19

Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.

"They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.

I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.

Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.

Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.

Yes, so put it up to 2% and cut NI accordingly (by about half).

You wont often get a libertarian like me supporting a tax rise, but a Land Value Tax, which is to some extent what this is, is the Least bad tax IMHO and if used to reduce other taxes, and/or reduce the deficit, then I could get behind that.

Mr. 86, I miss qualifying with refuelling. The BBC had an excellent F1 Mole blog which estimated fuel rates to a high degree of accuracy, which made betting somewhat easier.

You are correct, and here's my spin.

London 2012. The architect of which was Ken and the builder Seb Coe.

Brexit campaign. A latecomer to the party who nonetheless swung the vote over the line- probably not what he had in mind.

Brexit negotiations. WIP

Trade negotiations. see above WIP

Northern Ireland. He has trampled over the GFA with his boots on, and luck more than judgement has prevented too much violence. NI is not over yet.

Covid. Vaccination procurement was a triumph I will concede. Late lockdown on March, September and December 2020 were errors. Is there another on the horizon?

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

What on Earth have you been taking?

He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.

You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.

Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.

But leading is about getting publicity.

Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.

But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

Which isn’t going to end happily.

What are the issues he's led on and how have they worked out?

London - the Olympics were a success.

Brexit Campaign - he won against all expectations.

Brexit Negotiations - he got a new deal without the backstop that almost everyone except myself said was impossible to get.

Trade Negotiations - he got a new deal with Barnier and von der Leyen folding on almost every disputed issue in the end.

Northern Ireland - Managed to get Article 16 into the Brexit Negotiations which is now being used to ratchet an even better agreement despite Ireland and Europe's misgivings.

Covid - First major country in the world to have vaccines. First country in Europe to lift all legal restrictions.

No doubt you could draw up a similar list spinning everything I have written as good as bad. But that's a difference of opinion not a matter of fact.

Yes, all that is true, and is some consolation, But we also have had kids out of school for longer than any EU nation, the strictest lockdown at times, we have made use of almost non of the ability to deregulate that laving the EU allowed and are now going on a Net Zero road to serfdom.

Boris gets some things done, often against expectation, but....

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

TOPPING said:

First

FIRST!!!

I WAS FIRST!!!!!

FIRST.

I have never been FIRST before.

I rock.

Oh yes.

You lot won't hear the end of this.

I. Was. First.

Those who were first shall be last, and those who were last will be first

Yeah I was building up my lasts to get to today.

Never had you as the sort of bloke who desired handmade shoes

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

Legal, Yes, I do think it should be. I know that will sound harsh, but ultimately I support people freedom to do things I find bad or even despicable.

I should add, that as a friend, I would hope you might try to persewad him not to, or direct him to other help, but ultimately I don't think that you should spend years in a prison cell for helping somebody do something they wanted to do.

Gardenwalker said:

The other thing about Nandy is that she has interesting antecedents.

Father was a noted academic.
Grandfather was Liberal Chief Whip in the 1940s, and later a life peer.

Yes but.
She's a Northern woman from a Comprehensive.
What would Tories have to seal their arguments with?

Assisted dying really isn't something I can decide on.

MikeSmithson said:

Here's a thought. How much of the high COVID rates in the UK can be put down to the very large proportion who received the AZC vaccine for their first jabs?

Not really, the cases are very concentrated in school age children who are almost all unvaccinated. There are definitely breakthrough cases among older people but at the same time it doesn't seem like it's making a huge difference to the overall picture of under 18s getting it at a very high rate overall (8% of 11-15 year olds have got COVID at the moment and are getting infected at about 1% per day currently).

Among older people prevalence is about 1 in 100 vs 1 in 12 for kids.

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

The other thing about Nandy is that she has interesting antecedents.

Father was a noted academic.
Grandfather was Liberal Chief Whip in the 1940s, and later a life peer.

Yes but.
She's a Northern woman from a Comprehensive.
What would Tories have to seal their arguments with?

I didn't realise she had such an illustrious blood line. Bloody posho!

Three of HYUFD's favourite prejudices are encapsulated in just seven words in your second line.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

I do, with safeguards.

I don't think he should be able to call you up drunk and depressed one night and you go over and stab him to put him out of his misery.

But if he were to certify that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind - then a month or two apart give a second certification that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind, then I think his wishes should be respected.

Can a physically healthy person who wants to kill themselves be of sound mind? That's quite an interesting question. Otherwise, if he was up to going through 2 formal psychological assessments, months apart, he would most likely be up to doing the deed himself, I'd have thought. So, in practice, we're probably more in the realms of a spur-of-the-moment situation or "help" as in encouragement. "Yeah, do it, mate. Why the fuck not." This sort of thing. Or maybe more active than that. I believe this is (potentially) a criminal offence atm and I don't think I'd wish to change that.

"Of sound mind". I know this is a legal term.
But it is a legal term for an opinion. In other words, a best guess. Unlike cancer or summat.
It also is a snapshot. It doesn't mean they won't get better. They may. Or may not.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

I do, with safeguards.

I don't think he should be able to call you up drunk and depressed one night and you go over and stab him to put him out of his misery.

But if he were to certify that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind - then a month or two apart give a second certification that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind, then I think his wishes should be respected.

Can a physically healthy person who wants to kill themselves be of sound mind? That's quite an interesting question. Otherwise, if he was up to going through 2 formal psychological assessments, months apart, he would most likely be up to doing the deed himself, I'd have thought. So, in practice, we're probably more in the realms of a spur-of-the-moment situation or "help" as in encouragement. "Yeah, do it, mate. Why the fuck not." This sort of thing. Or maybe more active than that. I believe this is (potentially) a criminal offence atm and I don't think I'd wish to change that.

Since the physically unhealthy requirement proposed at the moment is six months left to live then yes absolutely a physically healthy person of sound mind could want to do so, for a variety of reasons.

Starting to undergo mental deterioration for dementia might be one. Might have years left to live but facing the prospect of dementia might want to go out at a time of their choosing while still knowing who they are.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

What on Earth have you been taking?

He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.

You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.

Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.

But leading is about getting publicity.

Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.

But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

Which isn’t going to end happily.

What are the issues he's led on and how have they worked out?

London - the Olympics were a success.

Brexit Campaign - he won against all expectations.

Brexit Negotiations - he got a new deal without the backstop that almost everyone except myself said was impossible to get.

Trade Negotiations - he got a new deal with Barnier and von der Leyen folding on almost every disputed issue in the end.

Northern Ireland - Managed to get Article 16 into the Brexit Negotiations which is now being used to ratchet an even better agreement despite Ireland and Europe's misgivings.

Covid - First major country in the world to have vaccines. First country in Europe to lift all legal restrictions.

No doubt you could draw up a similar list spinning everything I have written as good as bad. But that's a difference of opinion not a matter of fact.

Spun to infinity and beyond, but restricting myself to a factual correction. He didn't get a new Brexit deal. He went back to the old deal which the EU loved but "no British Prime Minister could ever accept" - and accepted it. Him being a British Prime Minster like no other.

The old deal didn't have Article 16, so no its not the same thing. And we'd be in an incredibly different situation now if there were no Article 16 so its a meaningful change.

BigRich said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Northern_Al said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?

But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.

Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.

Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.

Strategy is clear.

Tax rises now.
Tax cuts before election.

Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
- health (an insatiable maw)
- education
- defence

Sounds about right.

And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.

Well, it’s baked in.

Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.

Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19

Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.

"They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.

I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.

Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.

Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.

Yes, so put it up to 2% and cut NI accordingly (by about half).

You wont often get a libertarian like me supporting a tax rise, but a Land Value Tax, which is to some extent what this is, is the Least bad tax IMHO and if used to reduce other taxes, and/or reduce the deficit, then I could get behind that.

I think I'm with you Big Rich.
There are two bad things about taxes. 1) You are taking people's stuff, and 2) it drives away wealth. Income tax puts people off earning money (or at least doing so in this country), consumption taxes put people off consuming. Taxes which drive away the wealthy leave us all worse off. It is, however, impossible to offshore land. A land value tax is therefore more efficient than most taxes.
It's still morally questionable. And I'm wary of any tax which gives the satisfying answer of 'someone else!' to the question of 'who should pay?' But then this is true of most taxes, and yet we must have money for stuff the state needs to do.
Also, land is still astonishingly concentrated in the hands of the post-invasion aristocracy. The folk-revolutionary in me rather likes the redistributive effect from Norman to Anglo-Saxon. I recognise this is absurd, of course - I have some Norman in me, as does everyone else English.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

What on Earth have you been taking?

He looks nothing like a world leader. He’s an embarrassment to our country, drawing attention to our worst aspects just as Trump did for the US.

You find him an embarrassment because you dislike his politics.

Like him or loathe him, he is a world leader. He's been someone who has been able to generate headlines across the globe for many years long before he became Prime Minister.

Most domestic politicians are absolutely unheard of outside their own country. Boris rightly or wrongly is not. His critics will inevitably say its for the wrong reasons, but Mandy Rice Davies applies.

Sadly, in real life a lot of publicity isn’t good publicity.

But leading is about getting publicity.

Those who dislike a politicians politics will inevitably say you're leading in the wrong direction, those who like it will say the opposite.

The one thing that is patently absurd though is to deny Boris is a leader. He led the Brexit campaign, he led London (generating headlines globally, the Olympics helped with that but he exploited it), he led the country through Brexit after May failed. He's generating headlines around the globe with COP, with vaccines and more.

You might say he's a bad leader. But he's definitely a leader.

But with none of the capabilities or skills to make a good leader.

Which isn’t going to end happily.

What are the issues he's led on and how have they worked out?

London - the Olympics were a success.

Brexit Campaign - he won against all expectations.

Brexit Negotiations - he got a new deal without the backstop that almost everyone except myself said was impossible to get.

Trade Negotiations - he got a new deal with Barnier and von der Leyen folding on almost every disputed issue in the end.

Northern Ireland - Managed to get Article 16 into the Brexit Negotiations which is now being used to ratchet an even better agreement despite Ireland and Europe's misgivings.

Covid - First major country in the world to have vaccines. First country in Europe to lift all legal restrictions.

No doubt you could draw up a similar list spinning everything I have written as good as bad. But that's a difference of opinion not a matter of fact.

Spun to infinity and beyond, but restricting myself to a factual correction. He didn't get a new Brexit deal. He went back to the old deal which the EU loved but "no British Prime Minister could ever accept" - and accepted it. Him being a British Prime Minster like no other.

His.

His being a ….

Make an effort!

kinabalu said:

Interesting header, @Fishing, thanks. The last election was an odd one in that it felt a bit like it was called by the opposition ("Boris" and his buccaneering Brexiteers) against the government (the Remainer establishment). I think this accounted for some of the big win. Such a spin - "vote for change, we've only been in for 14 years" mustn't be allowed to succeed again and Labour are totally on this. Note how their spokespeople keep saying "this Tory government" when on TV and radio. Not "the government", not "the Tories", not "Boris Johnson" - This Tory Government.

That's all true, but I think you've left out the two most bizarre features of that surreal period - that the government had just sacked dozens of own MPs, and that about half the official opposition, who usually can't wait to fight an election, or say they can't anyway, abstained voted against it!

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

'English people want to bring back mask wearing and social distancing'



https://tinyurl.com/nhytv2m5

Well they say that. But if they wanted that, you'd see people wearing them. Where they are not required, only a minority wear them.

82% now say they wear a mask in crowded spaces, down from 97% in mid June. Those avoiding contact outside home has now fallen to only about 50%.

The number maintaining social distancing has fallen to 39% from 63% in July.

Over half are now travelling to work again with just under 20% working exclusively from home and another just under 20% doing a hybrid working from home and travelling to work
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59009284

Gardenwalker said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Walker, 'allow ourselves' more debt?

You mean, allow the succeeding generation to inherit a nation with more debt on its books. You may think that's worthwhile (in context), but those who decide the UK should borrow more will not be the ones to pay it back.

What's our interest on debt up to now? Few years ago it was around £50bn-ish, I think.

Yeh, I think you’re profoundly wrong on this.

U.K. PLC is like a company that is failing to borrow to invest in profitable infrastructure for the future.

By % of GDP to pay debt interest we have lots of headroom.

It's how much we have on floating interest rates vs fixed vs how interest rates may increase that is the threat.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Northern_Al said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?

But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.

Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.

Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.

Strategy is clear.

Tax rises now.
Tax cuts before election.

Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
- health (an insatiable maw)
- education
- defence

Sounds about right.

And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.

Well, it’s baked in.

Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.

Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19

Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.

"They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.

I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.

Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.

Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.

According to the Proportional Property Tax people it is about half that, and they propose a rate of 0.48%, plus the abolition of Stamp Duty, as being revenue neutral.

williamglenn said:

@HugoGye
255,406 covid booster jabs recorded in England yesterday - up from c.214k a week ago.

Getting there but could still do better.

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Northern_Al said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Isn't the obvious issue the Budget?

In non-General Election years tax rises etc can kick in at April. See the NI insurance rise already announced which will be an ugly hit in people's pay packets when it kicks in.

In General Election years tax cuts etc can kick in at April.

So Governments are piling the bad onto non-General Election years, and the good onto General Election years, and either way that kicks in at the Spring.

That works for election years, and given the fiscal corset of the next few years, it's a worry for the government.

But if I'd read this right (and it's fascinating, thanks @Fishing!) there's a wider pattern. Is it something as primal as early May is when winter and fake-Spring are unambiguously over, it's sunny and warm again, the flowers are out, and we all feel cheerful and optimistic? And that makes us feel positively disposed towards the government (of whatever party), even though it has literally nothing to do with their efforts?

But if I read it right the data says Spring is better in GE years and worse in non-GE years. So sunny and warm aren't the answer because if they were we'd be feeling sunny and warm in non-GE years too.

The Budget explains both to me. In non-GE years when the Government are piling on the bad news/taxes etc then we feel angry at the Government. Then in GE years they come back and bribe us with our own money and we are happy again. Overall.

Yup, I misread that. The government's problem is then that it hasn't been able to build up a pile of cash to bribe people with. The Scrooge/Santa cycle has been prised apart from the electoral cycle- partly because of the elections in 2017 and 2019, but mostly because of Covid.

Regardless of the state of the public finances, Covid spending and so forth, I'd be absolutely astonished if Boris and Rishi don't find access to a magic money forest that enables them to bribe the electorate in advance of the GE, whenever it is.

Strategy is clear.

Tax rises now.
Tax cuts before election.

Fiscally, this means we won’t meaningfully subsidise carbon zero or “level up”.

We’ll also see the continued hollowing out of the state outside the protected budgets:
- health (an insatiable maw)
- education
- defence

Sounds about right.

And if this government- blessed with a chunky majority, a PM who can persuade people of anything and the moment when the public is willing to look for changes- can't move the nation on from that, then we're collectively stuffed.

Unless (to adapt the line used, I think, about British Airways) we're happy to become a health service and pension system which happens to have a nation attached.

Well, it’s baked in.

Unless we tax more (wealth, not income) or we decide that we can afford more debt.

As it happens, I believe we should lower income taxes, increase wealth taxes, *and* allow ourselves a higher debt level to pay for levelling up.

Seems public opinion backs wealth taxes as I do

https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1451489992509886474?t=HcljOHoo6nq3e_8LfzyK7A&s=19

Public opinion always favours taxing other people. The question actually refers to taxing "the wealthy" not "wealth" and "wealthy" is an ambiguous term in common usage that could mean either wealth rich or income rich.
WIW I think we should tax wealth but also tax higher earners' income more. But a wealth tax is only going to be practical and raise significant amounts if it is levied on primary residences, with a relatively low threshold. Good luck getting that past the voters.

"They're coming for your house" - these words strike utter terror into people. I don't see any party going out on a limb with this. It's probably one of those things that can only happen if both parties agree on it.

I think the solution, as GW suggested below, is to abolish other taxes at the same time, ie council tax and stamp duty, two taxes that make little sense anyway. A tax on land values could be shared between local and central government. Arrangements could be made for the elderly to defer payment until death and sale of property. The tax would be seriously progressive and levelling up compliant too.

Indeed. On average people move every seven years, so you could start by abolishing stamp duty and introducing an annual property tax at 1/7 of the rates of stamp duty.

Net housing wealth is around £5trn so a 1% tax would raise £50bn which is the same amount as is currently raised by stamp duty and council tax combined. Or to put it differently, we are currently taxing housing wealth by 1% per year on average, but in a highly inefficient and unfair way.

According to the Proportional Property Tax people it is about half that, and they propose a rate of 0.48%, plus the abolition of Stamp Duty, as being revenue neutral.

Is the defence between strictly housing and all land/buildings?

Don't know but just a thought?

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

I do, with safeguards.

I don't think he should be able to call you up drunk and depressed one night and you go over and stab him to put him out of his misery.

But if he were to certify that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind - then a month or two apart give a second certification that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind, then I think his wishes should be respected.

Can a physically healthy person who wants to kill themselves be of sound mind? That's quite an interesting question. Otherwise, if he was up to going through 2 formal psychological assessments, months apart, he would most likely be up to doing the deed himself, I'd have thought. So, in practice, we're probably more in the realms of a spur-of-the-moment situation or "help" as in encouragement. "Yeah, do it, mate. Why the fuck not." This sort of thing. Or maybe more active than that. I believe this is (potentially) a criminal offence atm and I don't think I'd wish to change that.

Since the physically unhealthy requirement proposed at the moment is six months left to live then yes absolutely a physically healthy person of sound mind could want to do so, for a variety of reasons.

Starting to undergo mental deterioration for dementia might be one. Might have years left to live but facing the prospect of dementia might want to go out at a time of their choosing while still knowing who they are.

Ok, but I was more thinking of someone not old and with no serious physical ailments who wants to end their own life. Can such a person be deemed legally to be of sound mind? I don't know the answer - or if it even has an answer.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Boris is a joke.

Just like Trump, Berlusconi, and that Toronto Mayor who was on the crackpipe.

All of them surprisingly popular despite or perhaps because of their clown-act.

None of this has much to do with Nandy herself, except that I think - apart from Nandy being smarter and more charismatic than Keir - Boris would likely struggle (even) more against a female opponent.

I am sorry but Nandy is not smarter than Sir Keir, he may be dull as dishwasher but he does have a degree from Oxbridge unlike her and had a major job before being an MP as Head of the CPS unlike her. Nandy was just a researcher before becoming an MP.

I don't personally dislike Nandy but she is a complete lightweight when you are talking about a potential PM. If you want a female opponent for Boris Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall would be far better and far tougher for Boris to face than Nandy but then Labour rejected them in 2015 as it rejected Nandy in 2020, Labour does not like female leaders, that is clear. Rachel Reeves would also be a far more heavyweight threat than Nandy

It is not often we agree but I think that is an accurate comment

I do not rate Nandy at all but I do rate Rachel Reeves who has an impressive cv

Unless she manages to become Labour leader, then you'd mysteriously cease to rate her. I know what you're like, Big G.

RH1992 said:

williamglenn said:

@HugoGye
255,406 covid booster jabs recorded in England yesterday - up from c.214k a week ago.

Getting there but could still do better.

There is no supply issue like there was at the start of the year. We should be doing 500K+/day.

Economy showing signs of overheating according to Markit. That was unexpected. Think we're going to get a rate rise in November and then again in Q12022 up to 0.5% by the middle of the year and possibly up to 0.75% by the end of the year.

It's quite the turnaround from the Bank preparing for negative rates last year!

BlancheLivermore said:

Namibia need 75 runs in 58 balls, with 9 wickets remaining, to knock Ireland out of the T20 WC

Namibia win by 8 wickets with 9 balls to spare

AlistairM said:

RH1992 said:

williamglenn said:

@HugoGye
255,406 covid booster jabs recorded in England yesterday - up from c.214k a week ago.

Getting there but could still do better.

There is no supply issue like there was at the start of the year. We should be doing 500K+/day.

Perhaps the supply issue is wider than just the ampoules of vaccines, but includes people to do the jabs and venues in which to do them.

I agree with @HYUFD on this, actually.

Reeves looks like a leader. She has gravitas and the right credentials. She also has a northern seat, albeit she herself is a Londoner.

Labour could do a lot worse.

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

'English people want to bring back mask wearing and social distancing'



https://tinyurl.com/nhytv2m5

Well they say that. But if they wanted that, you'd see people wearing them. Where they are not required, only a minority wear them.

That poll you so casually dismiss had people supporting rather than opposing a legal requirement to wear masks in shops and on public transport by a margin of about 4 to 1.

It was conducted at the start of August. I think the disparity would be even greater than that now.

But I think the debate over masks is distracting from the real issue, in a country that has staked everything on vaccine policy. Namely the failure of the government to do more to incentivise people to get vaccinated. Vaccine passports and the like are popular. I don't know anyone who has got vaccinated who is anything but scathing about those who have still decided not to.

Life should be made much more difficult for those who choose not to get vaccinated, or who insist that their children shouldn't. You would soon see the vaccination rates rise significantly amongst the hold outs.

Nigelb said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good stuff, highlighted by some former PBers.

Turns out you should add 3-5% of that Green tally to the Labour share.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1451500322610946048?s=21

But Labour can’t be complacent. They desperately need to dump Keir for Nandy.

Good to see Cummings agrees with me, too.

Nandy is overpromoted being Shadow Foreign Secretary let alone party leader or PM. Can you really imagine Lisa Nandy at the G7 with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron? Or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi?

She also has less appeal to Remainers than Starmer and less appeal to Leavers than Boris anyway

At no point in BJ's parliamentary career (including being the very definition of an over-promoted foreign secretary) did I want to imagine him with Biden, Scholz, Trudeau and Macron, or dealing with Putin and Xi and Modi, but here we are.

Boris is at least a heavyweight unlike Nandy and globally recognised unlike Nandy and charismatic unlike Nandy and more intelligent than Nandy too. You may not like him but he looks like a world leader, Nandy does not. In fact Starmer looks more like a world leader than Nandy too

That sounds a bit sexist.

Why? Thatcher was a woman and the strongest leader we have had on the world stage since WW2.

But few of you Tories thought she was up to the job before she got it, and she only got it through accident.

In that respect at least, HYUFD is a traditional Tory.

Thatcher had a chemistry degree from Oxford and had a successful career outside politics too before she became an MP as a research scientist and tax barrister.

Nandy did not go to Oxbridge and her only experience outside politics was a brief period as a researcher, nor has she held a big Cabinet job. She is not suitable to be PM she is middle ranking minister quality at most.

Note even Labour decided that in 2020 when Labour members placed Nandy last in the Labour leadership election behind Starmer and Long-Bailey

Anabobazina said:

I agree with @HYUFD on this, actually.

Reeves looks like a leader. She has gravitas and the right credentials. She also has a northern seat, albeit she herself is a Londoner.

Labour could do a lot worse.

She’s good.

But she’s from the same factory they make New Labour apparatchiks.

Nothing to make the voter sit up and take notice.

Anabobazina said:

I agree with @HYUFD on this, actually.

Reeves looks like a leader. She has gravitas and the right credentials. She also has a northern seat, albeit she herself is a Londoner.

Labour could do a lot worse.

Note too when IDS was replaced mid parliament it was also with his Shadow Chancellor

IshmaelZ said:

JBriskin3 said:

Quite a lot of Bozo hate so far on this thread.

Personally - I'm a big fan of the hair.

More of an arse man, myself.

Kinky

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Cookie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

'English people want to bring back mask wearing and social distancing'



https://tinyurl.com/nhytv2m5

Well they say that. But if they wanted that, you'd see people wearing them. Where they are not required, only a minority wear them.

That poll you so casually dismiss had people supporting rather than opposing a legal requirement to wear masks in shops and on public transport by a margin of about 4 to 1.

It was conducted at the start of August. I think the disparity would be even greater than that now.

But I think the debate over masks is distracting from the real issue, in a country that has staked everything on vaccine policy. Namely the failure of the government to do more to incentivise people to get vaccinated. Vaccine passports and the like are popular. I don't know anyone who has got vaccinated who is anything but scathing about those who have still decided not to.

Life should be made much more difficult for those who choose not to get vaccinated, or who insist that their children shouldn't. You would soon see the vaccination rates rise significantly amongst the hold outs.

I think they are making a poor choice but I'm not scathing about them.

Fishing said:

kinabalu said:

Interesting header, @Fishing, thanks. The last election was an odd one in that it felt a bit like it was called by the opposition ("Boris" and his buccaneering Brexiteers) against the government (the Remainer establishment). I think this accounted for some of the big win. Such a spin - "vote for change, we've only been in for 14 years" mustn't be allowed to succeed again and Labour are totally on this. Note how their spokespeople keep saying "this Tory government" when on TV and radio. Not "the government", not "the Tories", not "Boris Johnson" - This Tory Government.

That's all true, but I think you've left out the two most bizarre features of that surreal period - that the government had just sacked dozens of own MPs, and that about half the official opposition, who usually can't wait to fight an election, or say they can't anyway, abstained voted against it!

And you can see why they DID vote against it! C80. Should have stuck to that imo. Kept "Boris" in his cage. People might have got sick of the spectacle.

Oh, shit...

Boris Johnson, speaking to me at a vaccine centre in London, says “there’s absolutely nothing to indicate” that another winter lockdown is on the cards.

More on @skynews now

https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1451542505615470593

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

I do, with safeguards.

I don't think he should be able to call you up drunk and depressed one night and you go over and stab him to put him out of his misery.

But if he were to certify that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind - then a month or two apart give a second certification that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind, then I think his wishes should be respected.

Can a physically healthy person who wants to kill themselves be of sound mind? That's quite an interesting question. Otherwise, if he was up to going through 2 formal psychological assessments, months apart, he would most likely be up to doing the deed himself, I'd have thought. So, in practice, we're probably more in the realms of a spur-of-the-moment situation or "help" as in encouragement. "Yeah, do it, mate. Why the fuck not." This sort of thing. Or maybe more active than that. I believe this is (potentially) a criminal offence atm and I don't think I'd wish to change that.

"Of sound mind". I know this is a legal term.
But it is a legal term for an opinion. In other words, a best guess. Unlike cancer or summat.
It also is a snapshot. It doesn't mean they won't get better. They may. Or may not.

That's my understanding, yes. I find this question - is a person of sound mind? - quite interesting.

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

BigRich said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

kinabalu said:

AlistairM said:

rottenborough said:

Sad news.


Ex-MP Frank Field announces he is terminally ill as he backs assisted dying law

This is very sad. I have never been a Labour supporter but Frank Field is a thoroughly decent man who deserves everyone's respect for a lifetime of service.

I sense that 'assisted dying' (the debate in which this sad news was announced) is an idea whose time has come.

It's fundamentally a libertarian issue. If the government would just let us but the drugs we want to buy including barbiturates, we could sort ourselves out.

Interesting point you raise here. What's the difference between suicide and an assisted death? I guess it revolves around "needs assistance" - but I can imagine this is not that easy to formulate into a test/question with a binary yes/no result.

Anything you can legally do, you should be able to ask somebody else for assistance to do, or pay somebody to help you do it.

I would frame this as 'Assisted Suicide' which I think is both accurate and descriptive.

Ok, but to test that. If I help a friend who is physically healthy but depressed to take his own life, you don't think that should be legal (for me), do you?

I do, with safeguards.

I don't think he should be able to call you up drunk and depressed one night and you go over and stab him to put him out of his misery.

But if he were to certify that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind - then a month or two apart give a second certification that he wishes to die while getting a psychological assessment that he's of sound mind, then I think his wishes should be respected.

Can a physically healthy person who wants to kill themselves be of sound mind? That's quite an interesting question. Otherwise, if he was up to going through 2 formal psychological assessments, months apart, he would most likely be up to doing the deed himself, I'd have thought. So, in practice, we're probably more in the realms of a spur-of-the-moment situation or "help" as in encouragement. "Yeah, do it, mate. Why the fuck not." This sort of thing. Or maybe more active than that. I believe this is (potentially) a criminal offence atm and I don't think I'd wish to change that.

Yes. Severe depression is absolutely not correlated with lack of rationality.

If all is black, to end it might be rational? Yes, I can see that. And rationality is a feature of a sound mind. So, going on -

- Can a sound mind think irrationally sometimes?
- Can an unsound mind think rationally sometimes?

Number 1 is easy (I think). It's Yes. Number 2 is not so easy to answer, but I think it's also Yes.

I'd agree. IMV rationality and irrationality are not binary, but a spectrum that varies in an individual over time. Spock was a caricature of 'perfect' rationality, and his alienness / otherworldliness shows that perfect rationality is an alien concept to us.

Cookie said:

BlancheLivermore said:

@billybragg
Was asked why I was wearing a mask this morning while ordering breakfast. Did you see those images of the Commons, I replied, with a bare-faced govt facing the masked opposition? I don’t want anyone in here thinking I’m a Tory
https://twitter.com/billybragg/status/1451482312797982729

If the left want to politicise mask-wearing, a) it is regrettable - why must bloody everything be turned into a culture war issue? and b) it will be counter-productive: if you want to associate your side with a particular action, associate it with an action people want to do.

Yes, it's ridiculous. As it is NOT a left-right issue in any way shape or form.

The moronic culture warriors piss me right off.