Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The money goes on an early exit for Corbyn

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The money goes on an early exit for Corbyn

Corbyn is receiving backlash today following last night’s BBC Panorama documentary on Labour anti-Semitism.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    Good.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    Yorkshire's Adil Rashid works his magic.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    Second like the LibDems
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 34,292
    But have the faithful lost faith? Not if TheJezziah is anything to go by.....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,123
    Corbyn isn't going anywhere.

    Why would he? There is no evidence that he would lose another membership ballot. It would be closer than last time - but I can't see him losing.

    If there is a snap election and he loses, then he might step down. But I can't see him losing a direct challenge at the moment
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,186

    But have the faithful lost faith? Not if TheJezziah is anything to go by.....

    He’s not alone.

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,123

    But have the faithful lost faith? Not if TheJezziah is anything to go by.....

    He’s not alone.

    What a thoroughly delightful chap he seems to be. Any chance to smear - particularly with something anti-semitic - he is right on it.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,022

    But have the faithful lost faith? Not if TheJezziah is anything to go by.....

    He’s not alone.

    What a thoroughly delightful chap he seems to be. Any chance to smear - particularly with something anti-semitic - he is right on it.
    I suspect a Champagne Socialist if he lives in Wargrave
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 21,028
    Can @DavidL please comment on what a good innings Smith is having? :wink:
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,123
    Did he really think anyone wouldn't see through his cunning ruse?

    Pathetic.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 14,955

    Can @DavidL please comment on what a good innings Smith is having? :wink:

    Smith'll get his century.

    There ye go, ye can have that one for free from north o' the border..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    IanB2 said:

    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

    There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

    There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway
    :lol:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    edited July 11
    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

    There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway
    Such touching faith in the great philanderer.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,474
    It is paradoxical that Jeremy Corbyn has been more or less completely rejected by the general public and yet still has most party members singing adeste fideles. Boris Johnson looks set to repeat the same trick.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Googly again !
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,385
    I'd have thought the lay side of that would be great value. Labour folk are tribal beyond all sense and reason.

    On Brexit, once Boris is in number 10 I reckon his challenge is that to land a no-deal Brexit still requires 6 bills to be passed. There's no way parliament would let them through, so his only Oct 31st option is a proper scorched earth departure, simply leaving a void with no legal framework for trade, migration, etc. So I do think it has to be a quick GE.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?
  • It is paradoxical that Jeremy Corbyn has been more or less completely rejected by the general public and yet still has most party members singing adeste fideles. Boris Johnson looks set to repeat the same trick.

    Just illustrates that party members are self-selecting.

    The Lib Dem membership was pretty supportive of Clegg at the toughest points in the Coalition and when his public reputation was in the toilet... but that's because those who didn't like going into Coalition upped sticks pretty rapidly in 2010-11.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838
    edited July 11
    Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

    Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

    They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,186

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    Corbyn is much happier in election season than the day to day business of parliament.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,887

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
    It would be a real delight for connoisseurs of hypocrisy to see how Labour would attempt to spin not agreeing to an election when they've spent the last year saying they wanted one.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
    It would be a real delight for connoisseurs of hypocrisy to see how Labour would attempt to spin not agreeing to an election when they've spent the last year saying they wanted one.
    Like their policy on a Deal... 'we only support a Labour election'.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,037
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

    There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway
    What is it like to be absolutely certain on every subject? Not to see shades of grey and branching possibilities, but only absolutes.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 8,548
    Jezza will only step down if and when he has a high degree of confidence that his successor will be in his image.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 348

    Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

    Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

    They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

    You've only just worked that out???
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Wouldn't a white flag be more appropriate ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    Jezza will only step down if and when he has a high degree of confidence that his successor will be in his image.

    Surely they can find another useless septuagenarian ?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 19,234

    It is paradoxical that Jeremy Corbyn has been more or less completely rejected by the general public and yet still has most party members singing adeste fideles. Boris Johnson looks set to repeat the same trick.

    Just illustrates that party members are self-selecting.

    The Lib Dem membership was pretty supportive of Clegg at the toughest points in the Coalition and when his public reputation was in the toilet... but that's because those who didn't like going into Coalition upped sticks pretty rapidly in 2010-11.
    They were few in number back in 2010
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    I'm sure they will.

    As we speak they are 2.8 to win - i.e. a very good chance.

    Last time they were rank outsiders.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,499

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
    It would be a real delight for connoisseurs of hypocrisy to see how Labour would attempt to spin not agreeing to an election when they've spent the last year saying they wanted one.
    It would depend on the timing but they will do anything to push brexit impact onto the Tory’s
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,526
    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    edited July 11

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
    Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
    Wanting a GE is just about the only consistent line they've taken from the beginning. I'm sure they would get away with refusing one but that's only because @TheJezziah would pronounce it in line with the master plan and a stroke of genius.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138
    https://tinyurl.com/yx9fogvq

    HS2 has been forced to cancel the current bidding process to construct the new Curzon Street station in Birmingham, and restart the process later this year.

    The rail body had hoped to attract at least four bidders for the contract, but a lack of interest means they will restart the process in September.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    kinabalu said:

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    I'm sure they will.

    As we speak they are 2.8 to win - i.e. a very good chance.

    Last time they were rank outsiders.
    Last time they were not losing Remainers to the LDs and Leavers to the Brexit Party
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    edited July 11
    What a leader he is....compare with Cameron when all the expense scandal blew up, he stood there in the street and gave a clear response.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771

    Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

    Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

    They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

    Damn, he's on to us :o
  • kjhkjh Posts: 718

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Spot on.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    Forget being banished to ConHome if you jinx the cricket, I think those that do so should be made to work in Labour Party HQ for a month...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,887
    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,128

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Very good points.

    Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
    Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back
    Are you and Charles distant cousins?
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,385

    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

    Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540

    Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

    Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

    They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

    Some EU nations like Poland and Italy have no more welfare system than the US and also an almost entirely contributory one.

    Some non EU states like Norway have higher welfare protection than the EU average, our welfare and health care system is actually closer to Australia and New Zealand than it is to either the EU or USA
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,913

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???
    Are you even British?
    Mr HY may be British - I have no reason to thin otherwise - but I am starting to suspect that his posts are scripted in the USA, not too far away from the White House. This would explain why he fawns over that Mr Johnson.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,887

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Very good points.

    Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.
    It's rather more than that. In fact we are seeing at this very moment an excellent example of a clear-cut case where raising taxes decreases the revenue - namely income tax revenue from doctors hit by the pension annual/lifetime allowances issue.

    Basically, you can ignore anyone who cites the Laffer Curve when discussing a specific proposal unless they consider the exact circumstances, including most notably what other options the taxpayers have.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 25,474
    tpfkar said:

    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

    Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?
    Labour has the opportunity to extract a pound of flesh in return for its agreement to an early election. I expect that it would insist on it.

    One gambit for Labour might be to refuse to vote for an early election and to insist on voting instead for no confidence, to give it the opportunity to form a government on the existing numbers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543

    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

    analagously, at what point would calling a VONC be too late to stop us leaving on Oct 31?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138

    tpfkar said:

    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

    Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?
    Labour has the opportunity to extract a pound of flesh in return for its agreement to an early election. I expect that it would insist on it.

    One gambit for Labour might be to refuse to vote for an early election and to insist on voting instead for no confidence, to give it the opportunity to form a government on the existing numbers.
    Let's assume Boris becomes PM in two weeks or so. Does Corbyn start the next PM market as favourite, and at what price?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    edited July 11
    In amongst losing all those wickets, Australia are playing quite well.

    250 still a possibility, even if not on the cards.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,887
    edited July 11
    tpfkar said:

    One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

    Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?
    Our friend @HYUFD seems to think it would be a runner, as well as Boris and half or more of the Conservative Party.

    One gotcha though is that the parliamentary vote calling for an election is divorced from the decision on the date of the election, which would be made by the PM.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771
    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    Australia could get 250 here, which is a defendable total.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 21,028
    Nigelb said:

    In amongst losing all those wickets, Australia are playing quite well.

    44.3 overs to get the 200 up.

    We need to bat sensibly in our innings. Not been our best trait when batting second.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Very good points.

    Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.
    There's a plot of it with empirical data in the wikipedia article describing it!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,982

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Thank you. Have tried several times to make the same point. But not as simply or eloquently.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 4,065
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
    Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back
    Nigel Farage, Mark Francois, HYUFD.
    Send em back!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653
    edited July 11
    IanB2 said:

    I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

    The election may be *this* year though, so he could fight it and still step down before 31/12 if he loses.

    That said, 6/4 is rotten odds. I'd want at least double that: 4/1 or above.
  • Forget being banished to ConHome if you jinx the cricket, I think those that do so should be made to work in Labour Party HQ for a month...

    ... in the complaints and compliance unit
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.
    The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,503
    Scott_P said:
    so it wasnt by the numpty that leaked the texts then ?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,128
    RobD said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Very good points.

    Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.
    There's a plot of it with empirical data in the wikipedia article describing it!
    I've just looked and I can't see it. Which plot are you referring to?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750

    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

    How many of those are former polys?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Captain's innings from Steve Smith.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.
    The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.
    And would you care to explain just how that works, other than the bald assertion ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750
    edited July 11
    Pulpstar said:

    Captain's innings from Steve Smith.

    Please, he's the disgraced cheat Steve Smith.

    Edit - and he's now OUT.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771

    RobD said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    Very good points.

    Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.
    There's a plot of it with empirical data in the wikipedia article describing it!
    I've just looked and I can't see it. Which plot are you referring to?
    Under empirical analysis....
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    Turn that question round.

    Will Labour NC a Boris-led govt intent on a No Deal Brexit?

    Let's assume they do. The next questions are:
    - will the Commons back Corbyn to be PM?
    - will the Commons back anyone else to be PM?

    If not, then we head to a GE anyway (and quite possibly No Deal into the bargain).

    If they will back Corbyn in principle, the question becomes what conditions the SNP, Lib Dems and others would place on that Labour government. Probably, these would involve rapid action to at the least kick the can on Brexit but that done, the incentive for the LDs and SNP to continue to back a Labour party committed to its own Brexit deal (whether achievable or not), drops of markedly, so we either have an early dissolution built into the deal or else Corbyn gets No Confidenced in turn.

    Whichever way the marble rolls, I think we end up at 'General Election' sooner or later, and by next Spring by the latest.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686

    Pulpstar said:

    Captain's innings from Steve Smith.

    Please, he's the disgraced cheat Steve Smith.

    Edit - and he's now OUT.
    WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE......f##k off you cheating bastard.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,771
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.
    The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.
    And would you care to explain just how that works, other than the bald assertion ?
    Tax rate goes up, effective tax rate goes down.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653

    Can @DavidL please comment on what a good innings Smith is having? :wink:

    Smith'll get his century.

    There ye go, ye can have that one for free from north o' the border..
    Oh no he won't :)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 75,750

    Pulpstar said:

    Captain's innings from Steve Smith.

    Please, he's the disgraced cheat Steve Smith.

    Edit - and he's now OUT.
    WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE......f##k off you cheating bastard.
    I'm taking some sandpaper to the Headingley test in the hope he signs it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    edited July 11
    Another bites the dust.....

    I do wonder why we didn't bring back Woakes earlier with Archer.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653
    Nigelb said:

    Jezza will only step down if and when he has a high degree of confidence that his successor will be in his image.

    Surely they can find another useless septuagenarian ?
    Not necessarily

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/02/02/labours-next-leader-dawn-butler-at-100-1/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    edited July 11
    Not sure I can bear to watch the England run chase....might have to put a load of other (drug) cheats climb a load of mountains in France.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
    Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back
    Are you and Charles distant cousins?
    I doubt it, the highest my family goes is landed gentry, Charles seems to be minor aristocracy
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,503

    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

    How many of those are former polys?
    Durham is pretty iffy
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905

    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

    So Jeremy Corbyn's CSE in metalwork from 1960 is now worth a Nobel Prize in physics. No wonder Theresa May lost her majority in 2017. Speaking of which, I gather some Oxbridge colleges hand out firsts like icing sugar at one of Michael Gove's parties.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,138

    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

    So Jeremy Corbyn's CSE in metalwork from 1960 is now worth a Nobel Prize in physics. No wonder Theresa May lost her majority in 2017. Speaking of which, I gather some Oxbridge colleges hand out firsts like icing sugar at one of Michael Gove's parties.
    Colleges don't award degrees, the university does.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    edited July 11

    The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

    Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
    University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
    University College London: 24% to 40%
    Durham University: 18% to 38%
    University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
    University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
    University of West London: 13% to 34%
    Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

    https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

    So Jeremy Corbyn's CSE in metalwork from 1960 is now worth a Nobel Prize in physics. No wonder Theresa May lost her majority in 2017. Speaking of which, I gather some Oxbridge colleges hand out firsts like icing sugar at one of Michael Gove's parties.
    I think even with all the grade inflation Uncle Thickie would be struggling to get more than a Desmond at the University of Huddersfield.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,281
    Let’s see:-

    1. Ambassador forced out of job despite doing nothing wrong and left unsupported by likely next PM.
    2. Staff working in complaints unit of Labour Party put under intolerable stress, bullied and intimidated.
    3. Staff working for MPs bullied and sexually harassed and assaulted - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/investigation-uncovers-litany-of-bullying-and-assaults-by-mps-xgpgp3m3c

    What wonderful role models we have.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    edited July 11
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    "The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
    Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
    One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.
    There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.
    The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.
    And would you care to explain just how that works, other than the bald assertion ?
    Tax rate goes up, effective tax rate goes down.
    But as a predictive tool, that is utterly useless - it appears to be comparing results from the 1960s with those of recent years. How is that in any way useful, other than to demonstrate that the change in receipts might not be directly proportionate to changes in tax rates, over time ?

    I acknowledge that for any given economy at any particular time, there is likely to exist an optimum rate for any particular tax (though this would, naturally, be impacted by rates for other taxes).
    One can even model the impact of changes in taxes - though of course models are subject to uncertainties.

    Beyond that, the idea that there is any theoretical curve which is useful as a predictive toll is simply nonsense for the rhetorical use of right wing politicians.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,385

    I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

    The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

    The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

    "It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

    True, and an important point, but also the Laffer curve may well vary over time, by culture and by age and gender.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
    While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
    Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

    Checks???

    Are you even British?
    Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back
    Are you and Charles distant cousins?
    I doubt it, the highest my family goes is landed gentry, Charles seems to be minor aristocracy
    Where did it all go wrong for you?

    :smile:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 34,686
    I just say now....its a good job England bat deep.....
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 917
    edited July 11

    Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

    Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

    They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.
    That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.
    The faithful seem to actively prefer being behind. Means no one looks too closely at their manifesto because it's assumed it won't happen, and the core voters who don't actually like Corbyn can be persuaded to vote to save their local MP and help mitigate the Tory/BXP majority. Ie what happened last time. If they're ahead they get scrutiny.
Sign In or Register to comment.