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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about 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'?
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
If you're right that the peak is 64% then why do we have people facing real tax rates of 80% and should we not be doing something about that!?
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.
...I don’t like to harp on these depressing themes...
I cannot imagine what this place would be like if ever you did.....
Thank you for the article. I enjoyed it and its predecessors. I look forward to the next entry, as I'm sure we all do. The published ones in Gareth's "The Challenge For..." series are:
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).
Those for sure - and Con could soft-pedal there. But they'd want something in return, surely. Would Ref be willing to soft-pedal in Con seats and so (presumably) give up on eclipsing Con? I'm not saying that Reform overtaking Con is likely, but if Reform believe it is then why not go for the Lab seats and also try to give Con a good kicking.
The last election favoured implicit Lab and Lib targeting as Lib were clearly not going to have ambitions to eclipse Lab, particularly given Lab polling in the run-up.
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
'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
OK, just to provoke an argument, could this be because the private sector has higher standards than the NHS?
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
'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?
No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
National Trust to cut jobs after Reeves job destroying budget.
Well done Rachel.
Over the last 25 years we've seen the deleterious effects of job creating budgets: an insatiable demand for cheap labour leading to mass immigration and suppressed wages. It was about time someone tried the job destroying approach instead.
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.
Needs to be labelled more like a Bourne novel:
The Laffer Uncertainty The Laffer Dilemma
Raiders of the Lost Laffer Curve The Laffer Curve Strikes Back Revenge of the Laffer Curve The Wrath of the Laffer Curve
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.
The LibDems should push their mainstream policies relentlessly. They have good form on increasing the Income Tax bands under the coalition that have now been frozen by Labour as a stealth tax. Pensioners with no other income are right on the verge of being caught by this. Being anti-Trump while Farage is his best mate should also be trumpeted as should reminding people of Farage's Brexit 'achievement'. People say that they don't know what the LibDems stand for. Getting these 3 points across would make a big difference and should help against their most important opponents, Labour and Reform.
Increase the Income Tax thresholds, taking the lowest paid out of taxation Are you better off after Nigel's Brexit? Do you trust him on the NHS? Do you like Nigel's friend Trump.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
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.
Needs to be labelled more like a Bourne novel:
The Laffer Uncertainty The Laffer Dilemma
Raiders of the Lost Laffer Curve The Laffer Curve Strikes Back Revenge of the Laffer Curve The Wrath of the Laffer Curve
Harry Potter and the Economist-manque's Laffer Curve.
'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?
No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
I would be willing to bet that Nuffield is legally exposed on this, with the surgeons reputation etc. So cancelling him is not no cost - a fair amount of risk.
'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?
If by the GMC which does not seem to be the case yet here
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's a couple flaws to a Ref/Con election pact pre-election. One is that in neither direction is it an entirely fungible vote, the second is that Farage is not getting any younger. 2029 might be his only chance so he needs to bet the lot. After that the bubble could well burst, and even if it didn't then the GE election after could be 2034, a long way off.
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
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.
Ok, let's assume we're talking to an ignoramus who erroneously thinks that tax rates can be raised ad infinitum and the total take will always go up.
What's the best way to disabuse such a (to be kinder) layperson of their misunderstanding - is it to start chuntering on about the Laffer Curve?
Clearly not. And we've already agreed it's not really a curve. So what exactly is the point of it other than what I said? - a tool for right wingers to argue for tax cuts and sound detached and academic.
Cracking article. Lib Lab coalition next time is very plausible. In that case leader of Lib Dems will be very important. Its a tricky horse to ride, claiming you will moderate either of the main parties.
I could see Lib Dems doing well as the anti Farage vote. Keir Starmer has perhaps made too many compromises to credibly claim that mantle, and there's definitely a market for it.
'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?
No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
I would be willing to bet that Nuffield is legally exposed on this, with the surgeons reputation etc. So cancelling him is not no cost - a fair amount of risk.
No, it's pretty safe to withdraw practising privileges on the basis of a high rate of complications as per the article. These are not an employment contract.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
If you're right that the peak is 64% then why do we have people facing real tax rates of 80% and should we not be doing something about that!?
Yes. If you're petitioning on that, I'll sign it. With pleasure.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
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.
The LibDems should push their mainstream policies relentlessly. They have good form on increasing the Income Tax bands under the coalition that have now been frozen by Labour as a stealth tax. Pensioners with no other income are right on the verge of being caught by this. Being anti-Trump while Farage is his best mate should also be trumpeted as should reminding people of Farage's Brexit 'achievement'. People say that they don't know what the LibDems stand for. Getting these 3 points across would make a big difference and should help against their most important opponents, Labour and Reform.
Increase the Income Tax thresholds, taking the lowest paid out of taxation Are you better off after Nigel's Brexit? Do you trust him on the NHS? Do you like Nigel's friend Trump.
Somehow LibDem HQ has got to persuade the BBC (especially) to take their heads out of Farage's arse when looking for third party spokespersons.
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
Conceptually there kind of must be, yes. But with so many complexities and moving parts (eg there are umpteen different taxes) you're never really in "curve" territory at all.
But despite this blast of busy fingers I'm sanguine enough about it. Just so long as we don't get PBers saying things like, "per the Laffer Curve our top rate of income tax is already too high."
(note to Bart: please don't now say that just to get my goat)
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.
Ok, let's assume we're talking to an ignoramus who erroneously thinks that tax rates can be raised ad infinitum and the total take will always go up.
What's the best way to disabuse such a (to be kinder) layperson of their misunderstanding - is it to start chuntering on about the Laffer Curve?
Clearly not. And we've already agreed it's not really a curve. So what exactly is the point of it other than what I said? - a tool for right wingers to argue for tax cuts and sound detached and academic.
The funny thing about the Laffer Curve is most estimates have the optimal tax revenue rate as something like 70%, which is significantly higher than what we have now. People suddenly shut up about it when you mention this.
It's complicated though - the relative value of more money is higher when you are at a lower income, but the jobs are much harder or mind numbing. It's a balance if the two.
For UC recipients, 90% of claimants have a effective tax rate of below 70%, and they have a tough sanctions regime for those who don't take up jobs. That's why I'm a bit sceptical of the incentives argument around UC; I think it's more about how crap those jobs are and, from personal experience, how unsuited for work these people are.
I think there should be a 50% cap on the rate though, anyway. Extremely expensive to deliver, effectively making millions of people eligible for UC.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
The sweet spot probably varies over time, plus a wide number of factors.
I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
It's going to be a long hard tour for us in Australia this winter. We will do well to keep it to 0-5! 😡
Oz haven’t got a Bumrah tho
He is the difference here
And the last test when Bumrah didn't play.
Collectively, even aging Australian bowlers are miles ahead of what England are likely to put out.
Archer - huge 'if' on fitness. Wood (M) 35 - injured, will never play 5 test down under, would be lucky to be fit for 3 Woakes 36 - will struggle to take more than 2 wickets per match Stokes - injured again. There's a surprise.
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.
The LibDems should push their mainstream policies relentlessly. They have good form on increasing the Income Tax bands under the coalition that have now been frozen by Labour as a stealth tax. Pensioners with no other income are right on the verge of being caught by this. Being anti-Trump while Farage is his best mate should also be trumpeted as should reminding people of Farage's Brexit 'achievement'. People say that they don't know what the LibDems stand for. Getting these 3 points across would make a big difference and should help against their most important opponents, Labour and Reform.
Increase the Income Tax thresholds, taking the lowest paid out of taxation Are you better off after Nigel's Brexit? Do you trust him on the NHS? Do you like Nigel's friend Trump.
Somehow LibDem HQ has got to persuade the BBC (especially) to take their heads out of Farage's arse when looking for third party spokespersons.
Lib Dems seem to have sold themselves as the "Local Party"
They need to sell national polices policies more if they want to be a national challenger. The problem this leads to, is the ending of Cakeism. Someone is not going to have more cake.
'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?
No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
I would be willing to bet that Nuffield is legally exposed on this, with the surgeons reputation etc. So cancelling him is not no cost - a fair amount of risk.
No, it's pretty safe to withdraw practising privileges on the basis of a high rate of complications as per the article. These are not an employment contract.
He will still sue. And his lawyers will be demanding compensation from Nuffield. Remember that compensation is often paid, even when in the right - cost of going to trial etc.
'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?
No, if you read the article the complication rate in the NHS is within the normal range.
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
I would be willing to bet that Nuffield is legally exposed on this, with the surgeons reputation etc. So cancelling him is not no cost - a fair amount of risk.
No, it's pretty safe to withdraw practising privileges on the basis of a high rate of complications as per the article. These are not an employment contract.
He will still sue. And his lawyers will be demanding compensation from Nuffield. Remember that compensation is often paid, even when in the right - cost of going to trial etc.
No. Practicing Privileges are discretionary. He hasn't got a leg to stand on.
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
"Forward with Stride!"
"Step out with Stride!"
"Walk this way with Stride!"
The possibilities are many....
FWIW I call the walk of shame the stride with pride.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
"Unite says it has suspended Angela Rayner from her membership of the union, amid a deepening row over the long-running bin strikes in Birmingham.
The deputy prime minister has been urging striking bin workers to accept a deal to end the dispute, which has seen mountains of rubbish pile up in the city.
The union said it would also re-examine its relationship with Labour after an emergency motion at its conference in Brighton."
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.
There is probably what might be termed a Laffer limit - the maximum percentage of efficient tax take for a given economy at a given time.
But it's still very hard indeed to quantify, varies considerably from country to country, and it likely a great deal higher than most Laffer believers would be comfortable with.
The truth is that taxation (in each of its many forms) is just one set of incentives/disincentives alongside all the many others. It's far messier than anything you could fit on a curve.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
The sweet spot probably varies over time, plus a wide number of factors.
I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example
Historically Income taxes over 50% were not unusual across the developed world, even in places like the USA. The top rate was 91%* between 1951 and 1963 in the USA for example, and those were America's boom years.
*the effective rate was lower as there were loads of deductions available, as indeed there were here when our rates were at similar levels.
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.
I know a few people working for charities who have said very much the same thing. It can provide a very cushy job for those at the top.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
The sweet spot probably varies over time, plus a wide number of factors.
I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example
Historically Income taxes over 50% were not unusual across the developed world, even in places like the USA. The top rate was 91%* between 1951 and 1963 in the USA for example, and those were America's boom years.
*the effective rate was lower as there were loads of deductions available, as indeed there were here when our rates were at similar levels.
No-one ever actually paid those rates - the game was that, on one side, the politicians were raising rates, while adding exemptions on the other. And the lawyers were writing the laws and planning to use the loopholes. So you got the scene in The Shawshank Redemption where even lowly prison guards are filing complex tax returns.
One thing that the UK has got, in the past, is simple tax for most people. The tax code is growing, however.
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
"Forward with Stride!"
"Step out with Stride!"
"Walk this way with Stride!"
The possibilities are many....
Minister for Silly Walks, the Rt Hon Mel Stride MP.
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.
I know a few people working for charities who have said very much the same thing. It can provide a very cushy job for those at the top.
The savage incompetence she describes is something else. It is a very incestuous world - she was literally told that she can't take the job of her departing boss, because she wasn't in the right social group.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
The sweet spot probably varies over time, plus a wide number of factors.
I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example
Historically Income taxes over 50% were not unusual across the developed world, even in places like the USA. The top rate was 91%* between 1951 and 1963 in the USA for example, and those were America's boom years.
*the effective rate was lower as there were loads of deductions available, as indeed there were here when our rates were at similar levels.
No-one ever actually paid those rates - the game was that, on one side, the politicians were raising rates, while adding exemptions on the other. And the lawyers were writing the laws and planning to use the loopholes. So you got the scene in The Shawshank Redemption where even lowly prison guards are filing complex tax returns.
One thing that the UK has got, in the past, is simple tax for most people. The tax code is growing, however.
We can fix that by requiring MPs to file their own tax returns, in hard copy, with only a copy of https://www.gov.uk/ for reference, and under exam conditions. And no PAYE.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
If those are the scores on the doors, the Lib Dems breathe a sigh of relief. They can sit back and enjoy the show, whilst a minority Labour government staggers on.
The much harder scenarios are the following: Lab first, but less than Ref+Con (say Lab 225 Ref 150 LD 125 Con 100 Others 50) Ref first, but with Lib+Lab being a majority (say Ref 225 Lab 210 LD 125 Con 40 Others 50)
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
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.
I know a few people working for charities who have said very much the same thing. It can provide a very cushy job for those at the top.
The savage incompetence she describes is something else. It is a very incestuous world - she was literally told that she can't take the job of her departing boss, because she wasn't in the right social group.
It's not every charity, but I am also familiar with that sort of stuff.
That's a point about comfortable, cushy jobs - the lengths people will go to protect their positions, and make sure they don't introduce scrutiny, without necessity admitting to themselves what they're doing, can be quite extreme.
Some charities are pretty well run; some are anything but.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
No, the difference is that Labour will have lost, so in that way its similar to 2010. Helping an incoming party is different and more acceptable that propping up an outgoing one.
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.
Ok, let's assume we're talking to an ignoramus who erroneously thinks that tax rates can be raised ad infinitum and the total take will always go up.
What's the best way to disabuse such a (to be kinder) layperson of their misunderstanding - is it to start chuntering on about the Laffer Curve?
Clearly not. And we've already agreed it's not really a curve. So what exactly is the point of it other than what I said? - a tool for right wingers to argue for tax cuts and sound detached and academic.
It is really a curve. Its non-linear, anything non-linear is a curve, that's quite literally what the word means. 🤦♂️
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
It's going to be a long hard tour for us in Australia this winter. We will do well to keep it to 0-5! 😡
Oz haven’t got a Bumrah tho
He is the difference here
And the last test when Bumrah didn't play.
Collectively, even aging Australian bowlers are miles ahead of what England are likely to put out.
Archer - huge 'if' on fitness. Wood (M) 35 - injured, will never play 5 test down under, would be lucky to be fit for 3 Woakes 36 - will struggle to take more than 2 wickets per match Stokes - injured again. There's a surprise.
Can I just note that "Brydon Carse" is a name out of a Thomas Hardy novel.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Shame for London. Not a single tube train in Leeds lacks aircon.
Does Leeds have a metro system?
I think that is Morris's point. There will be scant sympathy from anyone from any other British city for Londoners complaining about public transport! I remember someone - Dom Joly, I think - posted recently a whinge of a photo that he was having to wait ten minutes until the next tube train. It didn't go down well.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Shame for London. Not a single tube train in Leeds lacks aircon.
Does Leeds have a metro system?
I think that is Morris's point. There will be scant sympathy from anyone from any other British city for Londoners complaining about public transport! I remember someone - Dom Joly, I think - posted recently a whinge of a photo that he was having to wait ten minutes until the next tube train. It didn't go down well.
When I work in London for work I stay in 1 hotel in Romford - because it’s next to a station that’s on the Lizzie line and it makes the commute utterly painless.
I won’t bore people with the statement that decent good public transport is the key to productivity growth as it gives both workers and employers more options
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
No, the difference is that Labour will have lost, so in that way its similar to 2010. Helping an incoming party is different and more acceptable that propping up an outgoing one.
It's a hugely different result to 2010. It's similar to 2024 in that the Tories/Reform have been defeated.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
No, the difference is that Labour will have lost, so in that way its similar to 2010. Helping an incoming party is different and more acceptable that propping up an outgoing one.
2017? Electorate didn't notice. Though obviously would be different for Labour with the BBC dragged along in the wake of the right wing media in a hysterical attack on the "defeated, illegitimate govt".
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.
The Tories are somehow performing about 7% below their absolute base/rock bottom. I'm assuming that wouldn't happen with Jenrick as leader, putting them on a minimum of about 25%.
If Kemi was removed I would go for Stride now.
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
"Forward with Stride!"
"Step out with Stride!"
"Walk this way with Stride!"
The possibilities are many....
Strewth mate, that party isn’t wearing any strides.
Analogue broadcasts used to be 100% in sync with each other. With digital broadcasts, not only is there a delay compared to live, but the delay is slightly different depending on whether you're listening on digital radio, websites, or digital TV. None of them match up.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
The delay is for at least a year, so there must now be expected to be another winter/spring of "leaves on the track" leading to reduced Piccadilly Line services.
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.
That's not our boy Laffer though. It's about the tax take and the conceit is you can use the Curve to pitch tax at an 'optimum' rate to maximise the take.
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well I'm convinced there IS a sweet spot. I don't think it's possible to know where that sweet spot is, however.
Conceptually there kind of must be, yes. But with so many complexities and moving parts (eg there are umpteen different taxes) you're never really in "curve" territory at all.
But despite this blast of busy fingers I'm sanguine enough about it. Just so long as we don't get PBers saying things like, "per the Laffer Curve our top rate of income tax is already too high."
(note to Bart: please don't now say that just to get my goat)
You 100% are in curve territory, the problem is your illiteracy in not knowing what the word curve means.
Linear is a straight line. Curve is non-linear, not a straight line.
The more complexities, the more moving parts there are, the more of a curve you have.
The problem is that people act as if taxes are linear. Lets say we have a tax rate of 20% that raises £50bn then people act as if we put taxes up to 30% then it would raise £75bn . . . which would work if taxes were linear, but they're not, they're curved.
PS I have never said our top rate of tax is too high per the Laffer Curve. I say the cliff edges are too high.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Shame for London. Not a single tube train in Leeds lacks aircon.
Does Leeds have a metro system?
I think that is Morris's point. There will be scant sympathy from anyone from any other British city for Londoners complaining about public transport! I remember someone - Dom Joly, I think - posted recently a whinge of a photo that he was having to wait ten minutes until the next tube train. It didn't go down well.
I thought that was Lord Adonis, for a shorter wait than that.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Shame for London. Not a single tube train in Leeds lacks aircon.
Does Leeds have a metro system?
Alas, no. Nor a tram. Under multiple parties, across decades, there have been a joyous frittering of millions on consultations and plans that led nowhere.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I need to go and melt elsewhere.
Alas that global cooling isn't what we ended up with.
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
If those are the scores on the doors, the Lib Dems breathe a sigh of relief. They can sit back and enjoy the show, whilst a minority Labour government staggers on.
The much harder scenarios are the following: Lab first, but less than Ref+Con (say Lab 225 Ref 150 LD 125 Con 100 Others 50) Ref first, but with Lib+Lab being a majority (say Ref 225 Lab 210 LD 125 Con 40 Others 50)
You need something like 30 to 40 Lib Dem gains from Labour for those figures to occur. Do you think that's likely?
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.
Ok, let's assume we're talking to an ignoramus who erroneously thinks that tax rates can be raised ad infinitum and the total take will always go up.
What's the best way to disabuse such a (to be kinder) layperson of their misunderstanding - is it to start chuntering on about the Laffer Curve?
Clearly not. And we've already agreed it's not really a curve. So what exactly is the point of it other than what I said? - a tool for right wingers to argue for tax cuts and sound detached and academic.
It is really a curve. Its non-linear, anything non-linear is a curve, that's quite literally what the word means. 🤦♂️
Despite not attending many I can assure you it wouldn't pass muster in any self-respecting maths uni lecture. It'd get laffed out of theatre with its tail between its legs.
And that is the last word between the two of us on this matter. For once it's fallen to me.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Indeed.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
The proposed £8,000 paycut for the binmen is abhorrent. It's a stark contrast to the Doctors' greed.
‘Abhorrent’ 🙄
How many are affected and what’s the reason ?
The council reckons it’s is 17, the union 170
The council claims it is £6,000
They wanted equal pay for ‘equal roles’, they got it and tough
They've been absolutely done over by the legal system, their own union, Birmingham council ,national politicians and DEI. Noone can accept an £8k pay cut imo - well footballers might as they get older but that's a bit different.
"Should have gone for 400: Lara tells Mulder on missed record knock
Mulder, who was on 367 and looked good to go past Lara's 400, decided against it in a recent Test against Zimbabwe that South Africa won comfortably inside three days"
Analogue broadcasts used to be 100% in sync with each other. With digital broadcasts, not only is there a delay compared to live, but the delay is slightly different depending on whether you're listening on digital radio, websites, or digital TV. None of them match up.
I find when I'm listening to the Six Nations on the radio on in the kitchen, I can run into the lounge when there is a try in time to see it 'Live' on the TV.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Indeed.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
Thirty seconds too late, Bart. The tumble finished with the immediately preceding post.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Indeed.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
Thirty seconds too late, Bart. The tumble finished with the immediately preceding post.
No, it didn't.
You've been humbled and are withdrawing in disgrace by failing to comprehend what the word curve means.
Don't worry, you can withdraw. Just know that you are withdrawing in disgrace and that is why you'd be laughed out of any Maths classroom for not understanding the very meaning of the word curve.
Next time you want to converse on this, just educate yourself on what a 'curve' is. That might be useful, before looking to learn about Economics.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Indeed.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
Thirty seconds too late, Bart. The tumble finished with the immediately preceding post.
No, it didn't.
You've been humbled and are withdrawing in disgrace by failing to comprehend what the word curve means.
Don't worry, you can withdraw. Just know that you are withdrawing in disgrace and that is why you'd be laughed out of any Maths classroom for not understanding the very meaning of the word curve.
Next time you want to converse on this, just educate yourself on what a 'curve' is. That might be useful, before looking to learn about Economics.
In geometry a curve can be straight. It just doesn't have to be.
Perhaps economics has a different definition, but I can't find it anywhere.
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?
Look, Bart, if you want to say it's the "Laffer Curve" that tells you having cliff-edges in the tax system is absurd and perverse, be my guest. I can't stop you doing that, and tbh it doesn't really matter.
Most of the arguments against the Laffer Curve are "Don't be mean to my idea to raise taxes"
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Indeed.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
It's the principle that is faulty in real life terms not necessarily the shape of the graph.
Disappointing news that the introduction of the "New Tube for London", the new tube trains for, initially, the Piccadilly Line, and then other lines, with air conditioning and walk-through carriages, has been delayed.
Shame for London. Not a single tube train in Leeds lacks aircon.
Does Leeds have a metro system?
Alas, no. Nor a tram. Under multiple parties, across decades, there have been a joyous frittering of millions on consultations and plans that led nowhere.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I need to go and melt elsewhere.
Alas that global cooling isn't what we ended up with.
The NGT, which many thought stood for New Generation Transport, turned out to mean Never Gets Transport
Still, kept my wife in well paid work for a number of years working on various economic cases and evidence for appeals an counter appeals etc. Ill wind etc... But what a massive waste of money, for nothing.
On another very warm or even hot day in London Town, an observation weather forecast model output and opinion polls aren't without their similarities.
Both use forms of weighting and varying methodologies but while weather forecasts show different versions of the future, opinion polls show different views of the present. That's not to say both can't be used to spot trends and extrapolate what might happen further down the road.
The study of horse racing form is another - depending on the weighting you put on the variables - breeding, ground, jockey, past runs - informs your view of the probability of any horse winning and that helps you create your own "tissue" of odds which can be compared to that of the bookies.
Whereas with the weather, you generally know in 5-7 days and with opinion polls at the next election, the first race at Newmarket is due off in half an hour so that's instant gratification, justification or validation (delete as appropriate).
On topic, I don't see the Lib Dems changing their approach and that's probably the right thing to do. The question for them is, what to do in the event of a hung parliament next time. That's what they ought to be thinking about.
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
I agree, but we have to see where the rubble lies after the next GE, as we did in 2010.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
That's an interesting point re Labour losing it's majority. Say the result was something like:
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
If those are the scores on the doors, the Lib Dems breathe a sigh of relief. They can sit back and enjoy the show, whilst a minority Labour government staggers on.
The much harder scenarios are the following: Lab first, but less than Ref+Con (say Lab 225 Ref 150 LD 125 Con 100 Others 50) Ref first, but with Lib+Lab being a majority (say Ref 225 Lab 210 LD 125 Con 40 Others 50)
You need something like 30 to 40 Lib Dem gains from Labour for those figures to occur. Do you think that's likely?
I'd be surprised if there were that many.
I'd be less surprised by daisy-chains of results that had the same net effect.
Say, Con gain Aldershot from Lab but lose Hamble Valley to LD.
But mostly, I was mashing the numbers to make Liberal Democrats squirm. Is a chap to be denied all his pleasures?
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.
I know a few people working for charities who have said very much the same thing. It can provide a very cushy job for those at the top.
The savage incompetence she describes is something else. It is a very incestuous world - she was literally told that she can't take the job of her departing boss, because she wasn't in the right social group.
It's not every charity, but I am also familiar with that sort of stuff.
That's a point about comfortable, cushy jobs - the lengths people will go to protect their positions, and make sure they don't introduce scrutiny, without necessity admitting to themselves what they're doing, can be quite extreme.
Some charities are pretty well run; some are anything but.
I was pretty startled that someone would actually say "You aren't part of the chumocracy. Fuck off." to someone's face.
Even the Household Cavalry doesn't do that anymore.
Back vaguely on topic, to win 326 seats, the LDs need to win everything up to and including their 254th target which is Hammersmith & Chiswick where last year they finished fourth, just behind the Greens, on 9.3%. For the LDs to win, Labour would need to siphon off a third of the Labour vote, a third of the Conservative vote and most of the Green vote.
Reform's 322nd target is Warrington South where they were third with 16%, behind Labour on 47% and the Conservatives on 27%. If Labour lost a third of their vote and Reform doubled their share, it would be very close.
Both parties face huge tasks to win an overall majority based solely on the 2024 numbers and we know volatility is all though I suspect given East Ham is 380th on the LD list and further than 450th down the Reform list, none of this will bother me very much.
Comments
I've looked at it and I get 64%. So there's plenty of scope - if the Curve is right - for some chunky rises. I don't know why SKS and RR are angsting so much about it.
Well done Rachel.
More volunteers I guess.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jul/11/national-trust-to-cut-at-least-550-jobs-after-10m-rise-in-costs-from-reevess-budget
Thank you for the article. I enjoyed it and its predecessors. I look forward to the next entry, as I'm sure we all do. The published ones in Gareth's "The Challenge For..." series are:
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/02/the-challenge-for-labour/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/12/the-challenge-for-plaid-cymru/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/21/the-challenge-for-reform-uk/
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/07/11/the-challenge-for-the-liberal-democrats/
The last election favoured implicit Lab and Lib targeting as Lib were clearly not going to have ambitions to eclipse Lab, particularly given Lab polling in the run-up.
I don't know how accurate this is, but I count 23 Con seats in Ref's top 50 targets: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk (and 11 in the top 25; 42 in top 100). It's not obviously predominantly Lab that Reform would hurt.
He is the difference here
The article also talks about the investigation into goings on in the department of General Surgery and Neurosurgery at the Trust.
The Nuffield can cancel his practicing privileges at no cost other than possible loss of business, the Trust would have to pay him during suspension and need a robust case to sack him as unfair dismissal cases for such high earners are very expensive, often millions.
Well done Rachel.
The Laffer Curve Strikes Back
Revenge of the Laffer Curve
The Wrath of the Laffer Curve
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-india-betting-34484327
They have good form on increasing the Income Tax bands under the coalition that have now been frozen by Labour as a stealth tax. Pensioners with no other income are right on the verge of being caught by this.
Being anti-Trump while Farage is his best mate should also be trumpeted as should reminding people of Farage's Brexit 'achievement'.
People say that they don't know what the LibDems stand for. Getting these 3 points across would make a big difference and should help against their most important opponents, Labour and Reform.
Increase the Income Tax thresholds, taking the lowest paid out of taxation
Are you better off after Nigel's Brexit? Do you trust him on the NHS?
Do you like Nigel's friend Trump.
If you change taxes, behaviour is altered. The function linking tax to behaviour is complex and probably discontinuous.
In many ways, this comes back to the instinct to try and control reality using linear functions. Despite reality being non-linear.
Might be an idea to ask people who model the interaction of coastal erosion and costal defences. And use this to plan things. Their shit works.
Has that ever happened this early before ?
Kemi has clearly failed to out war on woke Farage and Jenrick would likely fail to out 'send the boats back' Nigel too.
Stride however can win back most of the 2024 Tories who voted for Rishi and Hunt but have drifted off to DK and Reform and see Kemi as lightweight and maybe add a few ex Tories who went Labour or LD at the GE.
Jenrick should be kept in a cupboard and if Farage and the Tories then lose the next GE and Farage resigns he can be brought out again and take over to win back rightwingers from a post Farage Reform and try and be a new more anti immigration Cameron after Stride's Michael Howard like stop gap leadership replaced Kemi's IDS
What's the best way to disabuse such a (to be kinder) layperson of their misunderstanding - is it to start chuntering on about the Laffer Curve?
Clearly not. And we've already agreed it's not really a curve. So what exactly is the point of it other than what I said? - a tool for right wingers to argue for tax cuts and sound detached and academic.
I could see Lib Dems doing well as the anti Farage vote. Keir Starmer has perhaps made too many compromises to credibly claim that mantle, and there's definitely a market for it.
Unite the Union suspend Angela Rayner's membership
They should be absolutely fine in the areas they won in 2024. Those results in Woking last night show how comfortable they are.
The only thing that could cause problems for them is if the economy and public finances go properly tits up. That's how the Tories become a threat again.
"Step out with Stride!"
"Walk this way with Stride!"
The possibilities are many....
But despite this blast of busy fingers I'm sanguine enough about it. Just so long as we don't get PBers saying things like, "per the Laffer Curve our top rate of income tax is already too high."
(note to Bart: please don't now say that just to get my goat)
It's complicated though - the relative value of more money is higher when you are at a lower income, but the jobs are much harder or mind numbing. It's a balance if the two.
For UC recipients, 90% of claimants have a effective tax rate of below 70%, and they have a tough sanctions regime for those who don't take up jobs. That's why I'm a bit sceptical of the incentives argument around UC; I think it's more about how crap those jobs are and, from personal experience, how unsuited for work these people are.
I think there should be a 50% cap on the rate though, anyway. Extremely expensive to deliver, effectively making millions of people eligible for UC.
Its very difficult to prop up a government that has just lost its majority, as clearly they have been rejected by the voters. There's obviously no way that LDs would support a Farage government.
So, if there is a majority government then LDs are on the opposition benches. If NOC we should stay there too, voting on a bill by bill basis on whatever minority government is formed.
I think it is possible to gather data, practically and via focus group, that can inform decisions on tax levels. There seems to be a psychological thing that income taxes over 50% are an inflection point, for example
Collectively, even aging Australian bowlers are miles ahead of what England are likely to put out.
Archer - huge 'if' on fitness.
Wood (M) 35 - injured, will never play 5 test down under, would be lucky to be fit for 3
Woakes 36 - will struggle to take more than 2 wickets per match
Stokes - injured again. There's a surprise.
They need to sell national polices policies more if they want to be a national challenger. The problem this leads to, is the ending of Cakeism. Someone is not going to have more cake.
Lab - 29% - 301 seats
Reform - 24% - 169 seats
Con - 20% - 71 seats
Lib Dem - 13% - 65 seats
Would it not be acceptable for the Lib Dems to go into power with Labour? The result wouldn't be all that different to 2024.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx24de0d9rdo
"Unite says it has suspended Angela Rayner from her membership of the union, amid a deepening row over the long-running bin strikes in Birmingham.
The deputy prime minister has been urging striking bin workers to accept a deal to end the dispute, which has seen mountains of rubbish pile up in the city.
The union said it would also re-examine its relationship with Labour after an emergency motion at its conference in Brighton."
But it's still very hard indeed to quantify, varies considerably from country to country, and it likely a great deal higher than most Laffer believers would be comfortable with.
The truth is that taxation (in each of its many forms) is just one set of incentives/disincentives alongside all the many others. It's far messier than anything you could fit on a curve.
*the effective rate was lower as there were loads of deductions available, as indeed there were here when our rates were at similar levels.
The council cannot yield here without being on the hook for more cash, according to their leader.
Yet Labour are expanding the scope of equal pay law to third parties so other councils may be on the hook.
https://x.com/unitetheunion/status/1943627360378507527?s=61
One thing that the UK has got, in the past, is simple tax for most people. The tax code is growing, however.
The much harder scenarios are the following:
Lab first, but less than Ref+Con (say Lab 225 Ref 150 LD 125 Con 100 Others 50)
Ref first, but with Lib+Lab being a majority (say Ref 225 Lab 210 LD 125 Con 40 Others 50)
How many are affected and what’s the reason ?
The council reckons it’s is 17, the union 170
The council claims it is £6,000
They wanted equal pay for ‘equal roles’, they got it and tough
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/piccadilly-line-new-trains-delayed-tfl-siemens-tube-london-underground-b1233989.html
That's a point about comfortable, cushy jobs - the lengths people will go to protect their positions, and make sure they don't introduce scrutiny, without necessity admitting to themselves what they're doing, can be quite extreme.
Some charities are pretty well run; some are anything but.
There will be scant sympathy from anyone from any other British city for Londoners complaining about public transport!
I remember someone - Dom Joly, I think - posted recently a whinge of a photo that he was having to wait ten minutes until the next tube train. It didn't go down well.
I won’t bore people with the statement that decent good public transport is the key to productivity growth as it gives both workers and employers more options
Though obviously would be different for Labour with the BBC dragged along in the wake of the right wing media in a hysterical attack on the "defeated, illegitimate govt".
Yep, those bastards at Reform have nicked them.
Linear is a straight line.
Curve is non-linear, not a straight line.
The more complexities, the more moving parts there are, the more of a curve you have.
The problem is that people act as if taxes are linear. Lets say we have a tax rate of 20% that raises £50bn then people act as if we put taxes up to 30% then it would raise £75bn . . . which would work if taxes were linear, but they're not, they're curved.
PS I have never said our top rate of tax is too high per the Laffer Curve. I say the cliff edges are too high.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I need to go and melt elsewhere.
Alas that global cooling isn't what we ended up with.
@georgeeaton
Angela Rayner resigned her Unite membership several months ago, I understand, so cannot be suspended.
And that is the last word between the two of us on this matter. For once it's fallen to me.
Curve means non-linear. That's all the word means, a line that is not straight, not linear.
It can be a simple curve, like x^2 or complex with many bends. The only thing it can't be is straight, as if its a straight line then there's no curve.
@kinabalu saying its not a curve means he's saying its not non-linear. Which means he's saying it is linear, which is false.
Mulder, who was on 367 and looked good to go past Lara's 400, decided against it in a recent Test against Zimbabwe that South Africa won comfortably inside three days"
https://www.deccanherald.com/sports/cricket/should-have-gone-for-400-lara-tells-mulder-on-missed-record-knock-3625786
You've been humbled and are withdrawing in disgrace by failing to comprehend what the word curve means.
Don't worry, you can withdraw. Just know that you are withdrawing in disgrace and that is why you'd be laughed out of any Maths classroom for not understanding the very meaning of the word curve.
Next time you want to converse on this, just educate yourself on what a 'curve' is. That might be useful, before looking to learn about Economics.
Perhaps economics has a different definition, but I can't find it anywhere.
Still, kept my wife in well paid work for a number of years working on various economic cases and evidence for appeals an counter appeals etc. Ill wind etc... But what a massive waste of money, for nothing.
On another very warm or even hot day in London Town, an observation weather forecast model output and opinion polls aren't without their similarities.
Both use forms of weighting and varying methodologies but while weather forecasts show different versions of the future, opinion polls show different views of the present. That's not to say both can't be used to spot trends and extrapolate what might happen further down the road.
The study of horse racing form is another - depending on the weighting you put on the variables - breeding, ground, jockey, past runs - informs your view of the probability of any horse winning and that helps you create your own "tissue" of odds which can be compared to that of the bookies.
Whereas with the weather, you generally know in 5-7 days and with opinion polls at the next election, the first race at Newmarket is due off in half an hour so that's instant gratification, justification or validation (delete as appropriate).
I'd be less surprised by daisy-chains of results that had the same net effect.
Say, Con gain Aldershot from Lab but lose Hamble Valley to LD.
But mostly, I was mashing the numbers to make Liberal Democrats squirm. Is a chap to be denied all his pleasures?
Why do we no longer get CNN on Sky or BT?
Even the Household Cavalry doesn't do that anymore.
Reform's 322nd target is Warrington South where they were third with 16%, behind Labour on 47% and the Conservatives on 27%. If Labour lost a third of their vote and Reform doubled their share, it would be very close.
Both parties face huge tasks to win an overall majority based solely on the 2024 numbers and we know volatility is all though I suspect given East Ham is 380th on the LD list and further than 450th down the Reform list, none of this will bother me very much.