Aside from the Norwegians, today's ferry queue was a bunch of French motorcyclists, a couple of Finnish and a few Swedish vehicles, one Dane, one Dutch, an intrepid Spanish car, only me flying the flag for the UK, and a shedload of Germans in cars, campers, vans and motorbikes.
Off the ferry came something called a 'hotelbus', a double decker where the upper deck and some of the rear appeared to have been converted into compact accommodation for the travellers. Not seen one of those before..
Poor Mr Dog has a few hours confined in the car on the car deck, which he won't enjoy at all, especially with the numpties who don't turn their car alarms off. At least it is exceedingly calm today.
Between which 2 places was the ferry travelling?
Bodo to Moskenes. 10-11 hours by road, three by ferry
City chatter is becoming about when the fiscal crisis will hit, not whether, and the talk is that that may be a lot sooner than political commentary realises.
This iteration of the Lib Dem map looks a lot more coherent and stable than previous ones, which often tracked a mixture of hyperactive activists, by-election wins and opportunistic campaigns (like tuition fees). On top of that, it's quite a bit bigger, and still has some room to grow. It helps that the Conservatives appear to have given up on the "nice England" part of their former coalition.
The catch is that Nice England gets you a solid block, but nowhere near winning nationwide. In their glory days, the Conservatives had the shires and the suburbs. The Red Wall was only ever the jam on top, and probably more trouble than it was worth, coherence-wise. Labour got the cities, the suburbs and the wall. Reform appear to be uniting the shires and the red wall, which looks mad but seems to work for now.
What's the next type of place for the Lib Dems to attack?
In answer to your specific question, I would suggest University towns,
I think that’s trickier now that the Greens have moved in so successfully on the student and hippy middle class vote. My suggestion would be for the Lib Dems to try and target Labour in some of the wealthy suburbs of newly flourishing Northern cities like Manchester and Newcastle. Some of those are just as prosperous and full of professionals as any Home Counties seat. The difficulty is that they’ve got no activist base there but they’ve got time to work on that before the next election.
The posher parts of the cities ought to be back in contention - seats like Hornsey, Hampstead, Hallam, and in the west of Manchester, Cardiff, Leeds etc
A pedant notes: Manchester doesn't really have a 'west'. If you walk a few hundred yards west from the city centre, you're in Salford. Which isn't really the posh bit.
In fact, a pedant continues (sorry), while I agree with your point, the bits you are thinking of of those three cities are South Manchester, North Leeds and North Cardiff.
OK; usually it's the west. Leeds West was a liberal seat once upon a time, wasn't it?
I think, technically, an SDP seat - it was always quite WWC, and one of the rare working class of the Lib/SDP Alliance's seats. It was the sort of seat which looked like the electoral future in the early 80s - definitely not a likely Tory seat of the time, but averse to the excesses of the far left.
The socio-economic geography of British towns and cities is a favourite subject of mine. In the absence of any other influence, it's almost always the case that the best part of any town or city is the south west and/or west - because that's where the prevailing wind comes from, so that's the bit with the cleanest air (this was a big issue in an era when most homes were heated by coal fires). Sheffield is the best example, but think also, off the top of my head: London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Stoke, Darlington, Huddersfield... But there is always other geography which gets in the way - coasts, rivers, coalfields, other towns and cities; or high land (which, where it is habitable, tends to push up desirability to more than it would otherwise be). West Leeds doesn't have the clean air advantages of West Sheffield because West Leeds is rubbing up against Pudsey and Bradford - so Leeds's most favourable bit has always been its northern edges, abutting the countryside. West Liverpool is in the Mersey estuary, and then the shipbuilding town of Birkenhead, so Liverpool's most favoured suburbs are its south east - which because Liverpool doesn't have a south west - because of the Mersey - doesn't have the clean air issues of southeasts of most cities. The best bit of Newcastle is the one bit - the North-North West - without any collieries. Manchester, too, had docks and collieries to the west and south west in Salford and Old Trafford: the best bits were in the south. Bristol and Glasgow, where rivers run north-west to south-east, have their best bits to the north of the river in the North West.
The more you dig into this, the more fascinating it gets. You can always ask 'why is area A better off than area B', and there is always an interesting answer.
My nephews are excited about the new Superman film. Better than expected, apparently.
A bit of simple optimism.
I'm looking forward to it, going to be the first superhero movie I take my girls to.
Wasn't too fussed with the last reboot, was too dark for Superman. It felt like after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy they'd decided everything should be dark and gritty but DC is supposed to have a deliberate contrast where Superman is the sunny, optimistic one while Batman is the dark and gritty one.
Yes, Superman should be all about idealism and optimism, I think. I remember those magical moments in the cinema in the late 1970's.
If you've been detained by ICE and might be deported it's not that stupid to try to get on Fox News saying you'll support Trump until you die and everything is Biden's fault.
When I last looked at the numbers, more than 90% of council byelections this year were won either by Reform or the LibDems.
This is quite something, no? We tend to be knowingly diverted by council by-elections - we enjoy them, knowing that only nerds like us pay any attention and that they're not really things to read too much into. But a failure of LabCon on this scale needs remarking on. This feels increasingly like a proper realignment.
I'm really not sure how to feel about this. Whatever my reservations were about my place in the LabCon system, I feel like I'm going to be considerably more homeless in a RefLD model. I suspect this is true of quite a lot of people.
Come over to Reform. We’re having fun. I know it’s still a bit wishy washy but we’re hiding our true policies which are to the right of Tamurlane the Great
We need to rediscover radical liberalism from the last century. The party created modern Britain in two phases, giving us universal education, healthcare and welfare. Britain is broken at a basic level, so radical shifts are once again needed.
In short, we need a new leader. I think Ed did a fantastic job transforming our prospects after the coalition, but he’s topped out.
My nephews are excited about the new Superman film. Better than expected, apparently.
A bit of simple optimism.
I'm looking forward to it, going to be the first superhero movie I take my girls to.
Wasn't too fussed with the last reboot, was too dark for Superman. It felt like after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy they'd decided everything should be dark and gritty but DC is supposed to have a deliberate contrast where Superman is the sunny, optimistic one while Batman is the dark and gritty one.
Yes, Superman should be all about idealism and optimism, I think. I remember those magical moments in the cinema in the late 1970's.
Indeed. He is to represent hope and inspiration, even in tough times.
And Superman would never, ever, take a life. Nor would Batman, despite how dark his setting is.
We need to rediscover radical liberalism from the last century. The party created modern Britain in two phases, giving us universal education, healthcare and welfare. Britain is broken at a basic level, so radical shifts are once again needed.
In short, we need a new leader. I think Ed did a fantastic job transforming our prospects after the coalition, but he’s topped out.
No, I don't think we do need a new leader. Davey is highly competent and knows how to run both local and national campaigns. The next GE will be about consolidation of those 72 seats, and adding a modest amount of further ones.
@GarethoftheVale2 gets a couple of things wrong in his header, the first being the lazy stereotypes, when actually the polling shows tA hat the LDs have some of the most even support by demographic groups. The second is his interpretation of the gap between the 17% NEV in the locals and the 14% nationally. Yes, GOTV counts, but as well as that there is a willingness of LD voters to vote tactically, and to recruit tactical voters nationally. That seam of voters has plenty left. The next GE will be a festival of tactical voting, with voters trying to keep out Reform. LDs stand to benefit.
In terms of overall policy I think the LDs are right to not buy into the "Britain is Broken" meme being driven by the populist right and Social Media. The country is not fundamentally broken, at least not more than it ever was, and that sort of relentless negativity and hate driven politics needs opposition. There's a lot of people out there who are fundamentally decent, happy to help their neighbours and happy with both diversity and international co-operation. A lot of us don't want to burn the country to its foundations.
How do the LDs stand to benefit from tactical votes to keep out reform? Where are these LD/Reform battlegrounds? A couple in the SW maybe but the LD battles are almost all vs the Tories.
The foundation of any party's GE campaign should start with retaining their existing seats, so these are the first place to recruit anti-Reform tactical voters. Labour needs to consider this too, and that will require appealling to LD inclined voters (the disparity between LD local and national vote shows that a lot of LD inclined voters already tactically vote).
I think the Tories have the hardest job defending their existing seats, being squeezed by both the Reform party and the LDs. I think Tory seat numbers will fall further. They have no USP, just reflexive voters like BigG who have always voted Tory, and those are dwindling further.
Quick experiment for everyone to try.
Try to imagine a Generic Liberal Voter. Now do the same for a Generic Liberal Constituency. Easy-peasy.
Now do the same for Reform. There are a couple of possibilities, but that's fine. Same for Labour.
Now try the same for the Conservatives. What does a Conservative seat look like these days? It's certainly harder to picture, and it might be impossible.
I think seats like Harrow East and Leicester East had a strong pro-Sunak Hindu vote. I don't think Jenrick will prove as popular there.
A recent poll had the Tories now polling better with black and Asian voters after Rishi and Kemi than white voters, as most white Brexit voting former Boris backers, especially white and lower middle class Boris voters, are now voting for Farage and Reform
A very simple proposal to declog the network - a tunnel from Ardwick to Salford. Much of the long distance traffic enters the tunnel, new underground station at Piccadilly, emerge near Cross Lane for onward travel towards Bolton or Liverpool.
This iteration of the Lib Dem map looks a lot more coherent and stable than previous ones, which often tracked a mixture of hyperactive activists, by-election wins and opportunistic campaigns (like tuition fees). On top of that, it's quite a bit bigger, and still has some room to grow. It helps that the Conservatives appear to have given up on the "nice England" part of their former coalition.
The catch is that Nice England gets you a solid block, but nowhere near winning nationwide. In their glory days, the Conservatives had the shires and the suburbs. The Red Wall was only ever the jam on top, and probably more trouble than it was worth, coherence-wise. Labour got the cities, the suburbs and the wall. Reform appear to be uniting the shires and the red wall, which looks mad but seems to work for now.
What's the next type of place for the Lib Dems to attack?
Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands.
The urban core is likely to stay Labour, or left of Labour. The rural shires are a Tory/Reform battleground. This leaves places that could be really "naice" if they were a bit more prosperous.
We don't talk enough about Middle England Towns etc. They're boring, but there are lots of them. Win those, and you win big.
Thank you for the piece, @GarethoftheVale2 which wasn't easy reading for an LD supporter.
The truth is, the challenge the LDs face now is the one they have always faced, to build local success in previously fallow areas and over time turn that into parliamentary success.
The 1997 "gains" were largely in areas where the party had a proven track record of activity at local level and I suspect a similar correlation occurred in 2024. There were some new areas of parliamentary progress in seats which had resolutely remained Conservative in the past and in other areas the earlier progress had dissipated entirely and the party was once again irrelevant.
So much depends on having a dedicated core of hard working activists who put in the time and effort to build local bases, delivery and membership networks and a reputation for being there for the voters. When I was a Liberal and later LD activist it astonished me how much the Conservatives took their vote for granted and did little or nothing between elections - that has changed.
The other side of the challenge is to be heard beyond the seats already with an LD MP or where the party is challenging hard. Vast oceans of inactivity surround islands of activity - in London, you have the six LD seats but where are the seventh and eighth coming from?
Yes, we can concentrate on more "affluent" areas, as an example Wanstead has a Gail's and an M&S but is hardly fertile LD territory but it's not much different from parts of Woking.
However, "breaking out" from the heartlands into other areas either requires a fortuitous by-election or two or a distinctive policy selling point which can cut through but it's a crowded field and I don't know where that policy is currently.
Contrary to a few other views, I'm quite happy with Sir Ed and I think the 2024 intake is very strong with two or three real stars of the future (Josh Babarinde, Bobby Dean and Helen Maguire would be my picks so far).
We turned South Woodford (where the Waitrose actually is) LibDem for a couple of decades, and the same could have been done in Wanstead with some effort. Although Wanstead used to have a few Labour folk involved in various community stuff, whereas back then Labour wasn't really active in SW.
Indeed when I moved there, SW was safe Tory and it took nearly eight years of work to prize it away from them, despite it being taken for granted as you say.
The chancellor has shelved any immediate plans to make changes to cash Individual Savings Accounts (Isas), the BBC understands.
Strong, decisive u turns
The BBC report says the banks were not happy. Cash ISAs is big business for them.
I suspect cash ISAs are useful to banks for prudential reasons. Thanks to their tax advantages and large proportion of fixed term investments they will be the last deposits to be withdrawn and could be used for capital requirements.
They also cream off a bit of we punters' tax saving by offering generally lower interest rates for ISA than non-ISA. Which really is quite naughty
Aside from the Norwegians, today's ferry queue was a bunch of French motorcyclists, a couple of Finnish and a few Swedish vehicles, one Dane, one Dutch, an intrepid Spanish car, only me flying the flag for the UK, and a shedload of Germans in cars, campers, vans and motorbikes.
Off the ferry came something called a 'hotelbus', a double decker where the upper deck and some of the rear appeared to have been converted into compact accommodation for the travellers. Not seen one of those before..
Poor Mr Dog has a few hours confined in the car on the car deck, which he won't enjoy at all, especially with the numpties who don't turn their car alarms off. At least it is exceedingly calm today.
Between which 2 places was the ferry travelling?
Bodo to Moskenes. 10-11 hours by road, three by ferry
I don't think that we have a UK ferry to Norway any more, and it's a long way from Denmark too, so must be part of the reason for so few UK vehicles.
Ref the comment earlier about council by election wins... Since May 1st about 70% of the by elections have been won by Reform or the LDs This was the tally before last night's 4 reform, 4 LD, 1 localist, 1 to come
Aggregate Result of the 49 Council By-Elections since the 2025 Local Elections:
The LDs are doing well, but they were defending a quarter of the seats fought so far, Reform doing best by a country mile in terms of gains but have yet to successfully defend a seat they hold
We need to rediscover radical liberalism from the last century. The party created modern Britain in two phases, giving us universal education, healthcare and welfare. Britain is broken at a basic level, so radical shifts are once again needed.
In short, we need a new leader. I think Ed did a fantastic job transforming our prospects after the coalition, but he’s topped out.
Unironically they need someone like Liz Truss.
A brain-dead fantastical self-publicist is the last thing they need!
As ever an excellent thread - detailed, thoughtful, incisive and evidence-backed - which shows PB at its best.
I agree. I enjoyed the header and found myself nodding along with much of it. But I do have a quibble, a serious one that unless it's resolved undermines the whole piece for me. It's this: Where is the hard polling data that shows LD voters shop at Waitrose?
I've voted for them a few times, and have never shopped in a Waitrose.
Ed Davey has proven to be a remarkably astute campaigner, with a keen sense of the political. He is also not afraid to take decisive action, as his punishment of Christine Jardine´s defiance of the whip has shown.
The new intake of Lib Dems MPs is also extremely impressive, and I certainly echo the comments about Helen Mcguire down thread. The fact that quite a few of these new MPs are ex- armed forces is also interesting, and Ed Davey has been pretty hawkish n subjects like Ukraine- that is something that could attract voters of a more Reform-y stripe. Firm on defence without being soft on Trump.
As for policies, well it does feel to me that the perennial Lib Dem policies of voting and constitutional reform are now ideas whose time has come. Voting reform, in particular is an increasingly popular idea.
Developing more technological investments in the economy is something that Ed has spoken about before.
Hawkish on defence, Trump critical, constitutional reforming and adding a touch of technology investment could add up to a very winning formula.
Ref the comment earlier about council by election wins... Since May 1st about 70% of the by elections have been won by Reform or the LDs This was the tally before last night's 4 reform, 4 LD, 1 localist, 1 to come
Aggregate Result of the 49 Council By-Elections since the 2025 Local Elections:
The LDs are doing well, but they were defending a quarter of the seats fought so far, Reform doing best by a country mile in terms of gains but have yet to successfully defend a seat they hold
This was the tally from July 24 to May 1 this year Aggregate Result of the 329 Council By-Elections (for 336 Seats) Since the 2024 General Election:
Aside from the Norwegians, today's ferry queue was a bunch of French motorcyclists, a couple of Finnish and a few Swedish vehicles, one Dane, one Dutch, an intrepid Spanish car, only me flying the flag for the UK, and a shedload of Germans in cars, campers, vans and motorbikes.
Off the ferry came something called a 'hotelbus', a double decker where the upper deck and some of the rear appeared to have been converted into compact accommodation for the travellers. Not seen one of those before..
Poor Mr Dog has a few hours confined in the car on the car deck, which he won't enjoy at all, especially with the numpties who don't turn their car alarms off. At least it is exceedingly calm today.
Between which 2 places was the ferry travelling?
Bodo to Moskenes. 10-11 hours by road, three by ferry
I don't think that we have a UK ferry to Norway any more, and it's a long way from Denmark too, so must be part of the reason for so few UK vehicles.
Yes, I expect fly and hire is easier (not that I have met many Brits at all, so far; in the towns, far more Americans).
Sadly the sea away from the coast isn't as calm as I had hoped, and the ship is now tossing about quite a bit.
A resumption of the Newcastle-Bergen service is perpetually rumoured, and I believe it's being considered again recently? Norway is a great, if relatively pricey, destination, but whether there's enough demand to make a direct UK ferry viable, I don't know.
This iteration of the Lib Dem map looks a lot more coherent and stable than previous ones, which often tracked a mixture of hyperactive activists, by-election wins and opportunistic campaigns (like tuition fees). On top of that, it's quite a bit bigger, and still has some room to grow. It helps that the Conservatives appear to have given up on the "nice England" part of their former coalition.
The catch is that Nice England gets you a solid block, but nowhere near winning nationwide. In their glory days, the Conservatives had the shires and the suburbs. The Red Wall was only ever the jam on top, and probably more trouble than it was worth, coherence-wise. Labour got the cities, the suburbs and the wall. Reform appear to be uniting the shires and the red wall, which looks mad but seems to work for now.
What's the next type of place for the Lib Dems to attack?
Middle England Towns and Their Hinterlands.
The urban core is likely to stay Labour, or left of Labour. The rural shires are a Tory/Reform battleground. This leaves places that could be really "naice" if they were a bit more prosperous.
We don't talk enough about Middle England Towns etc. They're boring, but there are lots of them. Win those, and you win big.
There was a very good header about Medium-sized English Towns and the Hinterland seats (METHs - though ISTR there was an extra E - MEETHs?) back about 2008. It deserves a rerun.
It said attractions were also facing “more tactical” activity by domestic visitors....you mean people ain't going as often.
I had to chuckle at Amazon claim that if a product can't be recycled, that send it for "energy recovery".....translation into English, they burn it in a massive incinerator.
As ever an excellent thread - detailed, thoughtful, incisive and evidence-backed - which shows PB at its best.
I agree. I enjoyed the header and found myself nodding along with much of it. But I do have a quibble, a serious one that unless it's resolved undermines the whole piece for me. It's this: Where is the hard polling data that shows LD voters shop at Waitrose?
Outdated and I'm not sure whether they're BPC members!
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
We need to rediscover radical liberalism from the last century. The party created modern Britain in two phases, giving us universal education, healthcare and welfare. Britain is broken at a basic level, so radical shifts are once again needed.
In short, we need a new leader. I think Ed did a fantastic job transforming our prospects after the coalition, but he’s topped out.
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Only if you're ignorant.
There is no numerical certainty or precision to economics, nor is there supposed to be, despite the many curves that we use.
Its not nonsense, it is a curve as opposed to a linear graph.
In the farming world there was always a special pity for the "National Trust Tenant" farming for a landlord who was clueless as to how to manage its own property.
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?
Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.
I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.
Aside from the Norwegians, today's ferry queue was a bunch of French motorcyclists, a couple of Finnish and a few Swedish vehicles, one Dane, one Dutch, an intrepid Spanish car, only me flying the flag for the UK, and a shedload of Germans in cars, campers, vans and motorbikes.
Off the ferry came something called a 'hotelbus', a double decker where the upper deck and some of the rear appeared to have been converted into compact accommodation for the travellers. Not seen one of those before..
Poor Mr Dog has a few hours confined in the car on the car deck, which he won't enjoy at all, especially with the numpties who don't turn their car alarms off. At least it is exceedingly calm today.
Between which 2 places was the ferry travelling?
Bodo to Moskenes. 10-11 hours by road, three by ferry
Thanks. Lofoten Islands — my parents visited those in about 2011. I've only been to Norway once, to Oslo in November last year.
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?
Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.
I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.
If its so obvious and not useful, why have we got so many awful cliff-edges in our tax system?
Why do so many get shocked that people don't want to work when facing an effective 100% tax rate?
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Would you object to a 'Laffer correlation'? A 'Laffer vague trend'?
Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.
I find it a rather obvious and not massively useful insight. So I'd go for the Laffer Chestnut.
You may find it obvious that reducing taxes induces more work to be done but unfortunately many do not.
As ever an excellent thread - detailed, thoughtful, incisive and evidence-backed - which shows PB at its best.
I agree. I enjoyed the header and found myself nodding along with much of it. But I do have a quibble, a serious one that unless it's resolved undermines the whole piece for me. It's this: Where is the hard polling data that shows LD voters shop at Waitrose?
I've voted for them a few times, and have never shopped in a Waitrose.
But is it "avoid the Waitrose" or "there isn't a Waitrose"?
These are very different socio-political concepts.
In the farming world there was always a special pity for the "National Trust Tenant" farming for a landlord who was clueless as to how to manage its own property.
Not just clueless but clueless and unwilling to listen because their incorrect knowledge was correct no matter how many people tried to correct it
The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.
If Root gets a double century (or even just a century-and-three-quarters) he overtakes both Rahul Dravid and Jacques Kallis in terms of career test runs scored, jumping to third in the all time list. Then needs another hundred or thereabouts to overtake Ricky Ponting to second.
The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.
It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”
It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth
I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
Given on most polls Reform now is heading for a majority or most seats why would they bother? Farage doesn't care about letting the Tories win back a few LD seats, he wants to destroy the Tory party so Reform becomes the main party of the right and main alternative to Labour.
Only if we went to PR or if the Tories replaced Kemi with a leader like Stride, Cleverly or even Jenrick who at least got the Tories back to level pegging with Reform again would Farage even consider a deal with the Conservatives now
We need to rediscover radical liberalism from the last century. The party created modern Britain in two phases, giving us universal education, healthcare and welfare. Britain is broken at a basic level, so radical shifts are once again needed.
In short, we need a new leader. I think Ed did a fantastic job transforming our prospects after the coalition, but he’s topped out.
Unironically they need someone like Liz Truss.
...to be the next leader of the Tories
More likely she is Farage's successor at Reform now than the Tories
The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.
It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”
It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth
I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach
That's certainly what Farage has been saying. I think he told the Speccie something along the lines of 'if you think I'm bad, wait to see what follows me if Reform don't win'
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
Overall, the centre right vote is well up on 2024, and Reform are winning about 60% of it, which is sufficient to deliver a lot of constituencies.
You missed this key quote from Freedman 'Reform can't get a big enough vote in wealthy southern places to win but they can get enough to prevent the Tories ever winning.
Whereas in non-urban Midlands/North seats Reform can get a big enough vote to win outright.'
Restore Trust will no doubt hope that means a bonfire of its woke management
At some point Restore Trust will realize that the only reason people vote at the National Trust AGM is to keep that set of 55 Tufton Street grafters away from it
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
The problem with RefCon doing a LibLab style of understanding (if one existed) is that while Libs were mostly chasing Con seats, that's also largely the case for Reform. Also, while Libs would have had a realistic ceiling on expectations - no chance of ousting or being bigger than Lab, Reform may well feel they can eclipse Con. For it to work, one of Con and Ref need to accept they're number 2 in that possible alliance.
'A surgeon banned from working for a private healthcare company, following an investigation into patient safety, continues to work in the NHS, the BBC has learned.
Nuffield Health has stopped Marc Lamah from working in their hospitals, but he is still operating on patients for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0n2r0d2yo
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Only if you're ignorant.
There is no numerical certainty or precision to economics, nor is there supposed to be, despite the many curves that we use.
Its not nonsense, it is a curve as opposed to a linear graph.
Tax at zero raises no tax because nobody pays any. Tax at 100 raises no tax because nobody bothers earning anything. So moving upwards from zero your tax take goes up, but at some point it has to peak and start coming down to land at zero again when we get to 100.
That's the insight. That's the "curve". It's essentially something that right wingers bandy about to add some faux-intellectual heft to an argument for tax cuts for the wealthy. Fine. That can't be helped. But me, I need a little more 'shape' on my curves. I did Maths, not economics, maybe this is why. Plus I'm not a right winger, I'm a left winger. There's by and large more rigor on the left.
The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.
It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”
It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth
I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach
If Jenrick takes over I think the Tories could regain the lead in the polls.
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
The problem with RefCon doing a LibLab style of understanding (if one existed) is that while Libs were mostly chasing Con seats, that's also largely the case for Reform. Also, while Libs would have had a realistic ceiling on expectations - no chance of ousting or being bigger than Lab, Reform may well feel they can eclipse Con. For it to work, one of Con and Ref need to accept they're number 2 in that possible alliance.
Is that right? I'd have said Ref are mainly chasing Lab seats (like, anywhere which used to be a coalfield and Hull).
Who could have predicted that the Chancellor dramatically increasing taxes in April on employment could cause a recession with declines in April and May?
Apart from anyone who understands anything about Economics that is.
Do you know anyone on here who understands anything about Economics? Maybe Robert, but I can't think of anyone else.
There are several. You haven't been paying attention
I discount anyone who believes the voodoo Laffer Curve works in a real world context. Only genuine economists need apply.
Your obsession with the Laffer Curve is weird.
All Economics is subject to debate on how it works in a real world context. Any economist worth their salt would always place caveats onw what they're saying.
The Laffer Curve is abused, but the theory is perfectly reasonable economics that does work in a real world context as well as any other theory.
There are countless examples retold here on a regular basis on how people change their behaviour at the cliff-edges especially. People who won't work more than 16 hours as if they do they'll lose benefits at such a rate they'll earn no extra money. People who won't earn beyond the 100k threshold as if they do they'll be worse off. Etc, etc, etc
What is that if not the Laffer Curve working on a real world context.
Anyone who says we should cut from 47% to 45% "because Laffer" doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who says we should deal with the 100% cliff edges "because Laffer" does.
The general principle that tax can drive behaviour is perfectly sound. The nonsense is the "Curve" descriptor - which bestows a false sense of numerical certainty and precision to it.
Only if you're ignorant.
There is no numerical certainty or precision to economics, nor is there supposed to be, despite the many curves that we use.
Its not nonsense, it is a curve as opposed to a linear graph.
Tax at zero raises no tax because nobody pays any. Tax at 100 raises no tax because nobody bothers earning anything. So moving upwards from zero your tax take goes up, but at some point it has to peak and start coming down to land at zero again when we get to 100.
That's the insight. That's the "curve". It's essentially something that right wingers bandy about to add some faux-intellectual heft to an argument for tax cuts for the wealthy. Fine. That can't be helped. But me, I need a little more 'shape' on my curves. I did Maths, not economics, maybe this is why. Plus I'm not a right winger, I'm a left winger. There's by and large more rigor on the left.
Its not about tax cuts for the wealthy, its about higher tax rates not always raising revenues.
Which is not as obvious as it should be, and the fact you associate it with the wealthy only is part of your and other people's ignorance.
Those on tax rates closest to 100% are not the wealthy, and yet people struggle to understand why we have economic problems.
'A surgeon banned from working for a private healthcare company, following an investigation into patient safety, continues to work in the NHS, the BBC has learned.
Nuffield Health has stopped Marc Lamah from working in their hospitals, but he is still operating on patients for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0n2r0d2yo
Does a ban in one sector automatically mean a ban in the other?
In the farming world there was always a special pity for the "National Trust Tenant" farming for a landlord who was clueless as to how to manage its own property.
Not just clueless but clueless and unwilling to listen because their incorrect knowledge was correct no matter how many people tried to correct it
A friend is exiting the charitable sector - her career so far has been watching utterly clueless fools with 6 figure salaries playing with charities like 4 year olds with Big Lego. The people who get hurt often are those who the charities are supposed to help. And the actual workers in the charities.
Greens hold on in Weladen run very close by Reform
So, this week's results are Reform 4, Lib Dem 4, Green 1, Local Party 1.
Only one second place for the Tories, despite three in Surrey, and one each in Oxon, IOW, Glos and Sussex. And that was 16% in a three way with no Reform.
The population of this country has been increasing fast in recent years, and growth is -0.1%. The theory that we need more people in order for economic growth doesn't seem to be working very well.
It’s a bit worse than “not working very well”
It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth
I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach
If Jenrick takes over I think the Tories could regain the lead in the polls.
With a Reform copy act? Maybe... I think the Tories would do better attacking Reform than agreeing with them. Pound them for their fantasy spending plans.
'A surgeon banned from working for a private healthcare company, following an investigation into patient safety, continues to work in the NHS, the BBC has learned.
Nuffield Health has stopped Marc Lamah from working in their hospitals, but he is still operating on patients for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0n2r0d2yo
Isn't it usually the other way round? Out of the NHS but still around in private practice. But of course, where questions of competence apply a ban should apply wherever. If it's a formal 'ban', of course.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/11/rachel-reeves-keir-starmer-economy-shrinking
The socio-economic geography of British towns and cities is a favourite subject of mine. In the absence of any other influence, it's almost always the case that the best part of any town or city is the south west and/or west - because that's where the prevailing wind comes from, so that's the bit with the cleanest air (this was a big issue in an era when most homes were heated by coal fires). Sheffield is the best example, but think also, off the top of my head: London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Stoke, Darlington, Huddersfield... But there is always other geography which gets in the way - coasts, rivers, coalfields, other towns and cities; or high land (which, where it is habitable, tends to push up desirability to more than it would otherwise be). West Leeds doesn't have the clean air advantages of West Sheffield because West Leeds is rubbing up against Pudsey and Bradford - so Leeds's most favourable bit has always been its northern edges, abutting the countryside. West Liverpool is in the Mersey estuary, and then the shipbuilding town of Birkenhead, so Liverpool's most favoured suburbs are its south east - which because Liverpool doesn't have a south west - because of the Mersey - doesn't have the clean air issues of southeasts of most cities. The best bit of Newcastle is the one bit - the North-North West - without any collieries. Manchester, too, had docks and collieries to the west and south west in Salford and Old Trafford: the best bits were in the south. Bristol and Glasgow, where rivers run north-west to south-east, have their best bits to the north of the river in the North West.
The more you dig into this, the more fascinating it gets. You can always ask 'why is area A better off than area B', and there is always an interesting answer.
And Superman would never, ever, take a life. Nor would Batman, despite how dark his setting is.
Has been proposed already
Indeed when I moved there, SW was safe Tory and it took nearly eight years of work to prize it away from them, despite it being taken for granted as you say.
Since May 1st about 70% of the by elections have been won by Reform or the LDs
This was the tally before last night's 4 reform, 4 LD, 1 localist, 1 to come
Aggregate Result of the 49 Council By-Elections since the 2025 Local Elections:
LDM: 17 (+6)
RFM: 16 (+14)
LAB: 5 (-12)
CON: 4 (-5)
GRN: 3 (+2)
Ind: 3 (=)
SNP: 1 (=)
Local: 0 (-5)
The LDs are doing well, but they were defending a quarter of the seats fought so far, Reform doing best by a country mile in terms of gains but have yet to successfully defend a seat they hold
The new intake of Lib Dems MPs is also extremely impressive, and I certainly echo the comments about Helen Mcguire down thread. The fact that quite a few of these new MPs are ex- armed forces is also interesting, and Ed Davey has been pretty hawkish n subjects like Ukraine- that is something that could attract voters of a more Reform-y stripe. Firm on defence without being soft on Trump.
As for policies, well it does feel to me that the perennial Lib Dem policies of voting and constitutional reform are now ideas whose time has come. Voting reform, in particular is an increasingly popular idea.
Developing more technological investments in the economy is something that Ed has spoken about before.
Hawkish on defence, Trump critical, constitutional reforming and adding a touch of technology investment could add up to a very winning formula.
Aggregate Result of the 329 Council By-Elections (for 336 Seats) Since the 2024 General Election:
LAB: 86 (-72)
LDM: 81 (+3)
CON: 73 (+23)
RFM: 43 (+43)
GRN: 18 (+6)
INDs: 15 (-2)
SNP: 11 (+2)
LOCs: 5 (-3)
PLC: 4 (=)
Sam Freedman
@samfr.bsky.social
For as long as the Tory/Reform split continues the Lib Dems are more or less guaranteed to hold their local and Westminster seats (and add more).
https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3ltoisjolqa2n
Sadly the sea away from the coast isn't as calm as I had hoped, and the ship is now tossing about quite a bit.
A resumption of the Newcastle-Bergen service is perpetually rumoured, and I believe it's being considered again recently? Norway is a great, if relatively pricey, destination, but whether there's enough demand to make a direct UK ferry viable, I don't know.
They are blaming employers NI rise.
Hmmmmmm.
I need to be in Norway ...
I had to chuckle at Amazon claim that if a product can't be recycled, that send it for "energy recovery".....translation into English, they burn it in a massive incinerator.
Nice to hear them playing Jerusalem tho
JOE ROOT
The Laffer Uncertainty
The Laffer Dilemma
Ooh, Root 100. Hurray.
Forty percent right-of-centre vote in one box wins in lots of places. Split it into two boxes, twenty-five and fifteen, and it wins in very few places. Substitute "left" for "right", and you have the political story of much of the twentieth century.
RefCon have got two choices, neither of them that agreeable. One is to continue the fight until only one stands, and hope that the winner doesn't lose too many limbs in the process. The other is to come to some sort of under-the-desk implicit understanding, of the sort that LibLab had in the runup to 2024. However rational that would be, personal ambition would make it difficult.
In the meantime, Lib Dems make hay in nice seats, and Labour probably do OK in default seats by default. FPTP rewards "least bad" exactly as much as "best".
There is no numerical certainty or precision to economics, nor is there supposed to be, despite the many curves that we use.
Its not nonsense, it is a curve as opposed to a linear graph.
Stokes to get 87
England 483 all out
Maybe sitting at the bow wasn't such a good idea....
Why do so many get shocked that people don't want to work when facing an effective 100% tax rate?
These are very different socio-political concepts.
Brilliant ball
England all out for 387
With the weather we've had recently, this must surely be the most favourable conditions for the crossing, yet there's an evil swell out there.
Meanwhile I see an amber heat alert has been issued for SE England starting in less than an hour...
"Trainspotting's Irvine Welsh: We've become 'dumbed-down machines'"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq7vzjwyvxo
It is visibly destroying the cohesion of the country, creating grave anger and stark urban decline, and we aren’t even getting growth
I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes, but the anger out there is off-the-dial. Reform might just be a holding position before darker forces encroach
Only if we went to PR or if the Tories replaced Kemi with a leader like Stride, Cleverly or even Jenrick who at least got the Tories back to level pegging with Reform again would Farage even consider a deal with the Conservatives now
Whereas in non-urban Midlands/North seats Reform can get a big enough vote to win outright.'
Nuffield Health has stopped Marc Lamah from working in their hospitals, but he is still operating on patients for the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev0n2r0d2yo
That's the insight. That's the "curve". It's essentially something that right wingers bandy about to add some faux-intellectual heft to an argument for tax cuts for the wealthy. Fine. That can't be helped. But me, I need a little more 'shape' on my curves. I did Maths, not economics, maybe this is why. Plus I'm not a right winger, I'm a left winger. There's by and large more rigor on the left.
- higher prices
- automation
Which do you want?
England bat deepBumrah can only play every other test.This is India’s match unless Stokes does something amazing
Which is not as obvious as it should be, and the fact you associate it with the wealthy only is part of your and other people's ignorance.
Those on tax rates closest to 100% are not the wealthy, and yet people struggle to understand why we have economic problems.
And that was 16% in a three way with no Reform.