politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s PB/Polling Matters TV Show: WH2016, the impact of
Comments
-
Wow. They are actually going to to try and stitch him up at the Convention.williamglenn said:
Pretty extraordinary interview - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.htmlTim_B said:RNC delegate and Rules Committee member Curley Haugland on CNBC earlier today.
"The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination and that's the conflict here."
Trouble in Paradise.
Ryan 50/1 for the nomination, on for a quid.0 -
Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again0 -
Oh dear,the lad isn't having the best few months is he.bigjohnowls said:
Nigella Lawson @AndrewRacklyeft 26m26 minutes agoRobD said:
You should probably also include who it's from.bigjohnowls said:@sajidjavid if you wouldn't be involved in a government that cuts benefits for disabled then i suggest you resign pal. #Budget2016
Did I just hear Sajid Javid correctly when he said he wouldn't be part of a government that cuts disability benefits? #newsnight0 -
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...0 -
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again0 -
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.0 -
How on earth is it 'partisan' to make people make an active choice whether or not to contribute to a political party?kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-358283350 -
0
-
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.0 -
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again0 -
If Trump gets a majority of elected delegates then to lose at a brokered convention would be a travesty.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...0 -
This tax despite George's grandstanding today is not forcing people to stop drinking pop.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.0 -
There would be some merit in your argument if so much government expenditure was not needed to cover the health costs of diabetes and obesity, and so much disability payment too.Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
0 -
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.AndyJS said:
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...0 -
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.0 -
Good point. Stoicism seemed to be the order of my day there.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again0 -
Absolutely. He should have just stuck with resigning as an MP.Mortimer said:
If DD votes against something in the manifesto he should have the whip withdrawn.Danny565 said:
David Davis and other Tory MPs have threatened to vote against it in the Commons on later readings, too.Philip_Thompson said:
It was in the manifesto, the government should use the Parliament Act if necessary.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Wouldn't be a great loss - he has been an absolute pain since losing the leadership election 11 bloody years ago.0 -
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.Tim_B said:
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.0 -
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.0 -
Tim, go back and read what you said.Tim_B said:
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
You said it wasn't the job of the government to fix people who need to be fixed. Well, in the UK it is. And will remain so as long as I can help it.0 -
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.RodCrosby said:
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.AndyJS said:
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...0 -
Did you not notice I support the proposed change? It's partisan in intent because clearly part of the reason for doing it is to harm the Labour Party. That doesn't, however, mean it is automatically unfair and I don't think it is.nthe motivation may be questionable, may be partisan, but it does not follow the idea is definitely bad.Tim_B said:
How on earth is it 'partisan' to make people make an active choice whether or not to contribute to a political party?kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Clear enough? Unless you think a good idea cannot simultaneously be done for partisan purposes, which is just plain wrong in my opinion. Many good and fair ideas may gain traction within parties only because they see it giving them partisan advantage. Boris choosing leave primarily, many believe, because of leadership ambition, is a similar sort of thing. The right thing for the wrong reason. I'm of the view that the reason is not always important though, but it would be silly not to acknowledge the reason.0 -
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.0 -
Taxes have to happen one way or another, voluntary taxes are the least worst.Tim_B said:
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
On condition that this tax is not increasing the government's share of GDP being taken in taxes.0 -
Hmm, is the conference centre near the airport or the city centre?foxinsoxuk said:
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.0 -
It's only going to raise around £500m, which will be more than offset by the personal allowance rises. Furthermore, the entire amount raised has been ring fenced for investment in school sports.Philip_Thompson said:
Taxes have to happen one way or another, voluntary taxes are the least worst.Tim_B said:
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.
On condition that this tax is not increasing the government's share of GDP being taken in taxes.0 -
Quite impressive if you believe in climate change or even merely pollution reduction - China and the US finally getting their act together:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-emissions0 -
This place in the meatpacking district had a fantastic set menu - think I had porchetta.
http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/copenhagen/mother-gdk651899
Was as cheap as Copenhagen gets, as far as I could see.
Breakfast (danish, juice and coffee) cost me over £10 in a bakery....0 -
I stayed in the Carlton Guldsmeden - very nice indeed. Warm, cosy and very clean. Decent spirits in the bar too.0
-
That would be somewhere around 1,180...Philip_Thompson said:
If Trump gets a majority of elected delegates then to lose at a brokered convention would be a travesty.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...0 -
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.0 -
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Wisconsin is looking "big" at this point.RodCrosby said:
I make it as Trump needs 542 delegates, out of a maximum of 912 remaining available via the electoral process. Delegates [approx 115] outside the electoral process Trump surely should not rely on at this stage.AndyJS said:
I wasn't taking super-delegates into account, probably.RodCrosby said:
In terms of elected delegates I think it's more like 47% and 59%.AndyJS said:
Was my post last night about Trump having taken 47% of delegates so far and needing 53% from now on more or less correct?RodCrosby said:
I think if it were strictly by the rules, everyone could live with it. But that leaves Cruz as the only possible alternative "by the rules".Wanderer said:
I'm very curious to understand how the American public would view a brokered convention that didn't nominate Trump if he were a few delegates short. Would it be seen as stealing the nomination from him or would the prevailing view be that he "hadn't got it done in regular time" and couldn't complain if he got a rough deal in overtime?Tim_B said:On the Democrat side, Clinton looks like a sure fire cert, but as the primaries move to the rust belt and industrial states, Sanders should do better. All democratic primaries are proportional.
On the Republican side with the withdrawal of Rubio the numbers tend to favor Trump. Republicans have a smorgasbord of winner take all, winner take most, and proportional primaries. The question becomes whether he can get the 1237 delegates before the convention, ensuring the nomination for him. Otherwise the Rules Committee will be involved at the convention.
An ABC/Washington Post poll surveyed 1,000 adults and asked if Donald Trump should win the nomination if he has the most delegates going into the RNC.
Should win - 53%
Pick someone else - 42%
No opinion - 5%
A brokered convention could be very dangerous for the Republicans. If, after the people have spoken - and spoken very loudly, primary turnout is up 35% or so - the back room boys at the convention choose someone else than the person with the most votes, that could be a disaster for the GOP.
I bring up the sports analogy because the Americans are notoriously less tolerant of draws in sport than Europeans and don't seem to acknowledge the idea of an almost-winner.
If the rules are completely torn up [along with all ballots] to coronate someone else entirely then there would be justifiable fireworks...
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.0 -
Merrick Garland is Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme court.0
-
You can avoid incomePulpstar said:This tax despite George's grandstanding today is not forcing people to stop drinking pop.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.
0 -
By spending all day on pb.com?Wanderer said:
You can avoid incomePulpstar said:This tax despite George's grandstanding today is not forcing people to stop drinking pop.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.0 -
Exactly! Strike a blow for small government.rcs1000 said:
By spending all day on pb.com?Wanderer said:
You can avoid incomePulpstar said:This tax despite George's grandstanding today is not forcing people to stop drinking pop.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.0 -
Agreed. I have the same feelings about Capri - not for the tax reasons, but cost of living is similar...Wanderer said:
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.
0 -
The Bella Centre about 3km south of the city centre. It doesn't sound as if there is much immediately around it. Christianshaven looks just about walkable. I like to walk to conferences, it wakes me up. I was last in Copenhagen camping in 1983.Mortimer said:
Hmm, is the conference centre near the airport or the city centre?foxinsoxuk said:
I am off to Copenhagen for a scientific meeting later this summer. Any recommended affordable hotels or places to eat? Preferably near the conference centre.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.0 -
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.0 -
There are also about 10 delegates, Carson, Paul?, Huckabee that Trump might get, but the rules are complex. Some may already have been released, some will still be bound to their original winners on the first ballot, and some can be 'directed' by their original winner, depending upon the particular state rules wherein the delegates were won...0
-
After umming & arring, I've decided against laying off my big 1000/1 Ryan/Romney POTUS bets. I honestly can't really get my head around the convention rules. I basically think a not-trump/cruz outcome is pretty unlikely, around 2% - but could be as high as 5-10% depending on the delegate math. In any case, most of that probability is sucked up by Kasich who is the obvious compromise candidate.
At a push, i'd value Ryan between 25/1-50/1 for the nomination & 50/1-100/1for POTUS - and Romney probably double or x3 Ryan's odds.
I'm just going to let my bets play out I think.0 -
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.0 -
No. It's on my "iffy" list...Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.0 -
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.AndyJS said:
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?0 -
Wisconsin's big on cheese, IIRC. Has Trump expressed a view on cheese?0
-
Could be a close three-way.Wanderer said:
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.AndyJS said:
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?0 -
Cliff Michelmore has died, aged 93.0
-
Presented the BBC's election night show in 1966 and 1970.peter_from_putney said:Cliff Michelmore has died, aged 93.
0 -
He also fronted Two Way Family Favorites and did the 70mph speed limit on motorways.AndyJS said:
Presented the BBC's election night show in 1966 and 1970.peter_from_putney said:Cliff Michelmore has died, aged 93.
0 -
96+ apparently.peter_from_putney said:Cliff Michelmore has died, aged 93.
Around with the dinosaurs...0 -
He did some holiday programme? Dimly remember it from my very early childhood.Tim_B said:
He also fronted Two Way Family Favorites and did the 70mph speed limit on motorways.AndyJS said:
Presented the BBC's election night show in 1966 and 1970.peter_from_putney said:Cliff Michelmore has died, aged 93.
(Edit: OK, he presented it until 1986 when I was 21. "Very early childhood" .... pfft.)0 -
Matt on great form as always
0 -
GreenPapers seem to have given up on MO. Could be recounts?
0 -
I'm looking at California:RodCrosby said:
Could be a close three-way.Wanderer said:
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.AndyJS said:
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
In 2008 the victory margin was 42-35 for McCain and he got under the same rules 158 out of 170 delegates.
In 2000 Bush won by 52-43 and got all 162 delegates.
The winner take all at a congressional district level can do wonders.0 -
The final stand to deny Trump the nomination would come on and after May 10th...Speedy said:
I'm looking at California:RodCrosby said:
Could be a close three-way.Wanderer said:
Next door to Michigan and Illinois also. And Rubio is off the menu.AndyJS said:
Next door to Minnesota which voted for Rubio, the only state to do so. Similar demographics too, mainly people of German and Scandinavian descent.Wanderer said:
If a Wisconsin primary were held tomorrow we would expect Trump to win convincingly, no?RodCrosby said:
Most of the polls in the remaining states are very stale, and still include Rubio, obviously, and in some cases Carson.Pulpstar said:
Trump must be hoping the mo' is with him.
But interesting what you say about its demographics. Is it likely to lean to Cruz?
In 2008 the victory margin was 42-35 for McCain and he got under the same rules 158 out of 170 delegates.
In 2000 Bush won by 52-43 and got all 162 delegates.
The winner take all at a congressional district level can do wonders.
0 -
Though as studies have shown total lifetime healthcare costs are highest for the healthy. So if taxing sugar actually worked to reduce obesity it would cost the nhs more. This is even before you figure in savings on pensions
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#5ac0619113c2
Tax Gym membership punitively if you want to save the state moneyfoxinsoxuk said:
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.Tim_B said:
I'm sorry, but saying that unless you tax 8p on a can of coke, the NHS goes bust, is such a ludicrous assertion it simply is not worthy of response.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
I'd rather tax sugar than abolish the NHS.
It is also saying that you favor government over the freedom of the individual.0 -
Frank Sinatra Jnr has died.0
-
Maybe 3:2 CDs to Trump at the moment, with 3 incomplete/TCTC; maybe the statewide TCTC also...Speedy said:
Some say that it might take weeks until they finally find out the exact precise result in Missouri.RodCrosby said:GreenPapers seem to have given up on MO. Could be recounts?
Anything from 42 to 15 for Trump.0 -
"What about the right not to work?" - Ali G.Wanderer said:
You can avoid incomePulpstar said:This tax despite George's grandstanding today is not forcing people to stop drinking pop.
It's just a choice of a Gov't revenue stream. I can avoid sugary pop, I need diesel/petrol to drive round... alot harder to avoid !
So I'm quite glad sugary pop and fags have been walloped as those are personal choices whereas income! and fuel really aren't.0 -
Trump eats cheeseburgers for lunch most days.rcs1000 said:Wisconsin's big on cheese, IIRC. Has Trump expressed a view on cheese?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-358192180 -
-
Which is precisely why it should not be the government's job to fix people when they are overweight. Making healthy choices is each person's own responsibility and so should the consequences be.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
Taking away the consequences will obviously change the behaviour. Making new consequences will also change behaviours, but not necessarily in a predictable way.0 -
Sounds boring.Wanderer said:
I lived in Copenhagen for a while, twelve years ago. I thought it was extremely relaxed compared with any British city I knew.NickPalmer said:
There was some research into that a few years ago, when it was found that people in Italy were notably more unhappy than most countries, despite the public image. IIRC the conclusion was that most Italians were spontaneous and outgoing, things that we associate with being happy, but they actually often felt unhappy. It's all a bit subjective and definitional.AndyJS said:
Yes I agree it was invigorating but people didn't seem — on the face of it — as happy as those in countries like Italy and Portugal.Mortimer said:
Did you visit Copenhagen Andy? I was there for 24 hours only, but it totally invigorated me.AndyJS said:Denmark is apparently the happiest country in the world, although I didn't particularly notice it when I was there last year:
http://news.sky.com/story/1660972/denmark-tops-happiest-country-survey-again
I've not been in Denmark lately, but certainly when I lived there most people seemed quite content with life, in a quiet sort of way. Typically the Danish football fans were called "Roligans", Ro meaning "calm", because they were peaceful and well-mannered.
I thought it would be a good place to live if you were rich. Sure, you would pay 2/3 of your income in tax but (if you were sufficiently rich) the remaining 1/3 would be a lot of money and you would have a peaceful, contented, creative society to live in.0 -
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-358283350 -
But the consequences of that person's poor choices are felt by more than just that person. It's reasonable for them to be nudged down a better path for the benefit of everyone else.MTimT said:
Which is precisely why it should not be the government's job to fix people when they are overweight. Making healthy choices is each person's own responsibility and so should the consequences be.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?0 -
Shareholding, in the sense of lots of people holding realtively small numbers of shares in a company isn’t the case now, though, is it. Most shares are held by pension firms and other investment companies.surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-358283350 -
ZenPagan said:
Though as studies have shown total lifetime healthcare costs are highest for the healthy. So if taxing sugar actually worked to reduce obesity it would cost the nhs more. This is even before you figure in savings on pensions
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesity-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/#5ac0619113c2
Tax Gym membership punitively if you want to save the state money
Main cost to society from obesity is less participation in work, more sick days at work and lower productivity at work. That all adds up to more benefits and less taxes.foxinsoxuk said:Tim_B said:
If people expect the govt to pay for the consequences of sugar addiction then it has become a govt interest.Mortimer said:
You have heard of the NHS right?Tim_B said:
The government's job is NOT to fix people when they're overweight or diabetic.That's a personal choice. By all means issue guidelines and stuff, but what you eat or drink is a personal decision.Mortimer said:
Thing is, when the government's job is to fix people when they're overweight and/or diabetic, then it is in their interest to stop people drinking this liquid sugar.Tim_B said:
Is it really the government's job to tell you what soda you should drink? This is Bloomberg territory in NYC. It is nuts.Mortimer said:
I agree. I hope it is the start of that. Pop should be made to be more expensive than water. In most places, it is cheaper.Sandpit said:
It's 8p on a can of coke, hardly the end of the world. If they really wanted to influence behaviour they should have made the tax much much higher, as with cigarettes. Coke at £2 a can would reduce consumption, at 70p instead of 62p, not so much.Mortimer said:I'm also sick of this 'but sugar tax will hit the poor most'.
So we should excuse the poor drinking something that is bad for them should we?
In a free country how could it be otherwise? There's only so far you can go in protecting people from themselves. Give them all the info you can in helping them make an informed decision, but eventually it's their decision.
Banning cigarettes, tobacco, e-cigs would be the single best thing to improve public health.
All this is doing is establishing another revenue stream for HMG, which now gives them a vested interest.
government over the freedom of the individual.0 -
Impressive and good news, but Climate Change isn't something that you 'believe' or disbelieve about, you look at the facts.NickPalmer said:Quite impressive if you believe in climate change or even merely pollution reduction - China and the US finally getting their act together:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-emissions0 -
Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.0
-
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?0 -
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?0 -
And you're not with your income.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?0 -
He is also robbing the poor of their daily sugar rush. How low can you go and still aspire to be PM?SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
0 -
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off0 -
Shares do not magically appear in people's portfolios. They get purchased. With money.Philip_Thompson said:
And you're not with your income.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
The bottom line on this, though, is that if the Tories want the bill to pass it will pass. And Labour will get less income. In turn, when Labour is eventually back in power it will put in place measures that will significantly reduce the Tories' ability to raise money.
0 -
It's becoming increasingly clear that George is not going to be PM and that he does not see himself being the Chancellor who has to clear up the mess in 20I9.MarqueeMark said:
He is also robbing the poor of their daily sugar rush. How low can you go and still aspire to be PM?SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
0 -
Although to be fair, a Glaswegian might wax lyrical about Raqqa too....Roger said:
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off0 -
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.0 -
Market Harborough is lovely, though it did get a bit flooded last week. Good train links to London so increasingly a commuter town. The South and East of Leics are quite bucollic rural England.Roger said:
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off0 -
LOL!MarqueeMark said:
Although to be fair, a Glaswegian might wax lyrical about Raqqa too....Roger said:
Completely agree. I loathe the idea that companies I have shares in contribute to the Tory Party. My only opt out is to sell.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
OT Fox. I had dinner with some medics from the Royal Marsden and one commuted from Market Harborough because he thought it was one of the nicest places to live in the UK. I've never known anyone wax quite so lyrical about Leicester and surrounds before and he was a Glaswegian, Next time I'll stop off0 -
Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?0
-
HmmmmDavidL said:
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Yesterday's budget was great news for the very wealthy (that CGT cut, the ISA reforms). Not so good for the disabled.
0 -
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
0 -
Mine's as ever it was...Casino_Royale said:Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?
0 -
Well, if Conservative chancellors do it left-wingers are going to point it out.Casino_Royale said:
I'm not a fan of Osborne (still) prioritising corporation tax and capital gains tax cuts over reductions in personal, family and pensions taxation but, to be fair, has there ever been a left-winger who hasn't said that about a Conservative chancellor?SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
0 -
I saw tweets to the effect last night that the PIPs cut is getting a poor reception among many conservative MPs. Cutting benefits to the disabled in order to give tax breaks to the middle class seems such a crass move that I wonder if it is the political equivalent to a stripper's thong - added just so that it can be discarded with a flourish. (with the money for the tax breaks being found somewhere else).0
-
'Leavers' paranoia!Casino_Royale said:Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?
0 -
If Labour get less income from this, it's only because they're getting money from people who don't actually want to give their money to it.SouthamObserver said:
Shares do not magically appear in people's portfolios. They get purchased. With money.Philip_Thompson said:
And you're not with your income.foxinsoxuk said:
Tax is beside the point. As a shareholder, I should not be compelled to contribute to a political party that I disagree with.Philip_Thompson said:
Not equivalent, companies are treated as legal individuals and get taxed on their income, if the income is distributed to shareholders then it can be subject to even more taxation (depending upon thresholds etc).surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
Are union contributions taxed?
The bottom line on this, though, is that if the Tories want the bill to pass it will pass. And Labour will get less income. In turn, when Labour is eventually back in power it will put in place measures that will significantly reduce the Tories' ability to raise money.0 -
You were obviously drinking too much last nightCasino_Royale said:Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?
0 -
I was just on the orange squash last night!MikeSmithson said:
You were obviously drinking too much last nightCasino_Royale said:Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?
0 -
I was surprised at the CGT cut. I suspect some effective campaigning by small business groups who were favoured. The LISAs are clearly a first step towards replacing the traditional pension but like the current pensions greatly favour the well off compared to the majority.SouthamObserver said:
HmmmmDavidL said:
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.
Yesterday's budget was great news for the very wealthy (that CGT cut, the ISA reforms). Not so good for the disabled.
The budget did not actually make any changes to disability benefits other than providing an additional £1bn to ensure PIPs were properly funded. The changes in disability benefits have been gradual since 2010 with the latest tranche coming in earlier this month. Labour have run that policy into the budget for political reasons.0 -
I am deeply disturbed by the photos of George staring at Theresa May's cleavage in the Metro today.
Cannot be unseen.0 -
There is plenty of scope to look at disability benefits, as there are curious anomalies. The problem as ever with welfare reforms is that it is hard to target the bludgers without penalising some in genuine hardship. People who work the system are often very good at working the system.DavidL said:
Hard facts and figures are very hard to come by on this since most comparisons are comparing apples and pears. What the government has been doing is replacing the old disability allowance with the PIPs. DLA was paid to a surprising number of people, over 640,000. It paid for subsidised cars etc. Many, such as a good friend of mine, who received it were in full time work.SouthamObserver said:Got to say I am loving George's wheeze of cutting support for the disabled to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy.
It is much harder to get a PIP than it used to be to get DLA and large numbers of people with relatively minor disabilities will lose out. On the other hand the PIPs that are paid are more generous than DLA was and it does appear to be true that in the category of these eligible the money will be more than ever before. The reduction in the number of claimants, however, means that there is a saving for the government compared to the old system.
The major personal tax reductions that are going through were not new in the budget but are the increase in the PA. Those on more than £100K continue to lose that entitlement as their PA is reduced to zero so the tax cuts are once again mainly for the lower paid. The increase in the allowance for higher rate tax has not been kept up with inflation in recent years so he has reduced the element of fiscal drag there.0 -
The sugar tax is an assault on SUN readers!! Come the revolution that rag and everyone who works there or reads it will be first against the wall........
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/7006985/What-the-Budget-means-for-you-Almost-everyones-a-winner-but-sugar-tax-is-a-pointless-sting-on-Sun-readers.html0 -
Hope it was a 'no added sugar' oneCasino_Royale said:
I was just on the orange squash last night!MikeSmithson said:
You were obviously drinking too much last nightCasino_Royale said:Is it just me or has the 'post comment' button changed to an all curly one?
0 -
0
-
The donations are coming from the company, not from individual shareholders. They have to vote in favour of their company making the donations, however.surbiton said:
I would have supported this if each shareholder also had to opt in if the company was donating money to a political party.kle4 said:
Partisan in intent though it may be, and as vital as unions still are (even if some of their officials seem more interested in matters far beyond merely securing the best for and protecting their workers) I have yet to see how it is actually unfair to require people to make an active choice to contribute to a political party. Guess it doesn't matter if it has been so heavily defeated in the Lords, doesn't seem a fight the government would have the will or votes to keep on forcing through.FrancisUrquhart said:The government has been heavily defeated in the House of Lords over trade union reforms Labour fears will cost it millions of pounds in funding.
Ministers want to require Labour-affiliated union members to "opt in" to paying a levy to the party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35828335
The union levy is coming directly from the union members.
If the Unions were to put up their fees (to the central pot) and then choose to make a donation in their own name then it would be analogous to the company/shareholder relationship0
