politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Corbyn’s Labour has to have any chance it has to dent Os

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Corbyn’s Labour has to have any chance it has to dent Osborne’s reputation on the economy

Labour’s unrelenting focus should be on the economy. Even before the mockery that he earned with misjudged tweet on the modest Google tax payment  the Chancellor George’s Osborne’s claims to competence have been fraying fast.

Read the full story here

BannedInParis

If its so obvious, why are they doing the complete opposite? Every time they spokesmen open their mouth on the economy, you can practically see middle england thinking "nah, you're alright"

Casino_Royale

2nd like Osborne.

Richard_Nabavi

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

MarqueeMark

Labour needs a Plan B.

It has no Plan B.

runnymede

Yawn, more feeble propaganda

Tim_B

FPT -

DecrepitJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Dimly remembered, it was a coda to a deleted email story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

(It is not just America -- we had our own small scale equivalent at Education under the coalition.)

Neither of those is remotely comparable to the Clinton allegations, which relate to (amongst other emails) allegedly highly sensitive classified information, not just to documents subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.

The common factor is bypassing official government mail servers.

There is no common factor whatever.

Hillary Clinton set up her own email server and did not use government email AT ALL.

Nobody else has ever done that.

Razedabode

I'm not sure the current labour leadership could capitalise on any future failings in the economy. They certainly could if they had someone the public saw as credible as leader. For many I think they would take one look at Corbyn and still fail to be convinced to vote for him.

Casino_Royale

On topic, this is rubbish. It's precisely the same line of attack Labour tried on Osborne in May last year which so comprehensively failed.

Either Labour address their spendthrift image and economic credibility problem, or they have to sit back and wait for Osborne to be hoist by his own petard.

No bets from me on which will come first.

Richard_Nabavi

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

Alanbrooke

Yes Osborne is failing on investment and skills, but coming from Labour that's just plain laughable. For 13 years you did even worse.

Plato_Says

Err. It's a credibility issue. Labour has none. Wishful thinking don't make it so.

Sunil_Prasannan

runnymede said:

Yawn, more feeble propaganda

Naught but Lefty Pinko Propaganda?

HurstLlama

There is definitely the ammunition and Osborne ought to be vulnerable on so many fronts. However, Labour don't seem to be able recognise either the vulnerabilities and or firing any ammunition other than at their own feet.

If Labour are going to convince they need to do more than just point out Osborne's failings, lots of us have been doing that for years, they need to propose some viable alternative policies that would be acceptable to middle England, and that seems completely beyond them.

Sunil_Prasannan

MarqueeMark said:

Labour needs a Plan B.

It has no Plan B.

Plan C for Corbyn?

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

PBers have been arguing against Osborne's competence since 2011 and each year the number of voices is growing.

like Brown, his record is now catching him up.

SimonStClare

Labour are currently so split that presenting a united front on any attack line seems beyond them – It also helps that Seamus Milne, it is fair to say is certainly no Alastair Campbell.

MarkHopkins

MarqueeMark said:

Labour needs a Plan B.

It has no Plan B.

Plan B - MiliBand

Plan C - Corbyn

Plan D - Dianne

Plan E - Extinction

MTimT

FPT: MarqueeMark said "Not been following it too closely, but it seems to me the grave risk for Clinton is reformatting Top Secret and above emails with no security clearance at all on them. If that is proven, then depending on the timing, she either never gets on the ballot paper, or if elected, then she goes straight to Impeachment.

Her choice of Veep will be fascinating....for the next President market."

Jail time only beckons for certain if they find the instruction from Hillary to her minions to do that. So far, no-one is indicating that that particular smoking gun has been found.

But. And it is a big but, if one, two or three of her aides go to jail for actually doing the reformatting, then I don't see Hillary winning the election, even if she wins the nomination, almost no matter who the GOP put up against her. The Donald's tweet this morning (that she is a threat to national security and not Presidential) will be run ad nauseam and will gain sufficient traction where it matters - in the centre.

In fact, my gut feeling is that all it will take to scupper Hillary's White House dreams is for Huma Abadin to be indicted on damning evidence. Even if Huma takes the fall for Hillary, the two are so politically bound that it'll be seen by enough voters as proof-sufficient for the public court of Hillary's guilt (if not enough for the legal courts).

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

It's actually quite easy to point to a few big Osborne failings, but it's bloody hard for Labour to make any hay out of it when they are beyond a joke.

Plato_Says

Seriously, there are a handful here so much harder line that the Tories wouldn't have won enough in 2010 or 2015.

It may frustrate you, but most are happy enough.

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

PBers have been arguing against Osborne's competence since 2011 and each year the number of voices is growing.

like Brown, his record is now catching him up.

Richard_Nabavi

Alanbrooke said:

PBers have been arguing against Osborne's competence since 2011 and each year the number of voices is growing.

like Brown, his record is now catching him up.

No, the moaners ebb and flow for little identifiable reason. For some bizarre reason, which I never understood, they were especially disgruntled by the 2012 budget - which was a very good budget - and then, for no particular reason, sentiment seemed to turn in Osborne's favour. Now it's turned against, again for no substantial reason. Indeed, of all the things to attack him, the latest fad of saying he's not doing enough on taxation of multinationals is the most absurd - he's done more than any other recent Chancellor, and a year ago was being criticised for doing too much!

Meanwhile, the UK remains one of the few bright spots in the world economy. There will be some EU Referendum turbulence this year, though.

Sunil_Prasannan

SimonStClare said:

Labour are currently so split that presenting a united front on any attack line seems beyond them – It also helps that Seamus Milne, it is fair to say is certainly no Alastair Campbell.

So you mean to say that Labour are even more split than Mr Splitty the Banana Split doing the splits?

DavidL

Whilst I agree that obtaining economic credibility is a pre-requisite of Labour's recovery they are heading in the opposite direction.

I was involved in what might loosely be called a debate (or slanging match) with Another_Richard and Alanbrooke on here last night. The critique of Osborne's performance is from the right. It claims he has not done enough to cut the deficit, to cut spending, to break up the banks to make them more competitive, to make our industries more competitive (polite speak for getting more for less out of the workforce); to simplify and cut taxes etc.

I was defending him and will continue to do so but, possibly other than the break up of the big banks, it is difficult to see anything in that agenda that is not going to be anathema to McDonnell. His solutions of even more borrowing, public "investment", even more consumption, peoples QE etc are going to be met with derision across the board.

Labour need to get real. If they want to oppose the benefit cap, for example, they need to explain how much that would cost, who would pay for it and why that would help the economy grow faster. When even the likes of Danny Blanchflower is in despair at their direction and statements Osborne gets a free ride.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

PBers have been arguing against Osborne's competence since 2011 and each year the number of voices is growing.

like Brown, his record is now catching him up.

No, the moaners ebb and flow for little identifiable reason. For some bizarre reason, which I never understood, they were especially disgruntled by the 2012 budget - which was a very good budget - and then, for no particular reason, sentiment seemed to turn in Osborne's favour. Now it's turned against, again for no substantial reason. Indeed, of all the things to attack him, not doing enough on taxation of mukltunationals is the most absurd - he's done more than any other recent Chancellor, and a year ago was being criticised for doing too much!

Meanwhile, the UK remains one of the few bright spots in the UK economy. There will be some EU Referendum turbulence this year, though.

Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.

Plato_Says

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

runnymede

Where Osborne has demonstrably failed I think is in the area of reform. He has missed the opportunity afforded by May's election result to press ahead with long-overdue reform and rationalisation of the tax system.

Like his boss, he seems unable to get over having lost the excuse for inaction that was the Lib Dems.

williamglenn

MTimT said:

Jail time only beckons for certain if they find the instruction from Hillary to her minions to do that. So far, no-one is indicating that that particular smoking gun has been found.

Is the email quoted on here a few days ago not a smoking gun?

In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

taffys

''Meanwhile, the UK remains one of the few bright spots in the world economy. There will be some EU Referendum turbulence this year, though. ''

You are setting up straw men, to some extent. Taxation of multi-nationals has received very little attention on here. Its Osborne's budgetary performance that has received the most criticism.

The fact remains that after six years debt is mounting alarmingly, the finances are still well adrift of any sort of balance, and Osborne's only meaningful response is higher taxes on the aspirational middle class.

Richard_Nabavi

Alanbrooke said:

Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.

No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

Whilst I agree that obtaining economic credibility is a pre-requisite of Labour's recovery they are heading in the opposite direction.

I was involved in what might loosely be called a debate (or slanging match) with Another_Richard and Alanbrooke on here last night. The critique of Osborne's performance is from the right. It claims he has not done enough to cut the deficit, to cut spending, to break up the banks to make them more competitive, to make our industries more competitive (polite speak for getting more for less out of the workforce); to simplify and cut taxes etc.

I was defending him and will continue to do so but, possibly other than the break up of the big banks, it is difficult to see anything in that agenda that is not going to be anathema to McDonnell. His solutions of even more borrowing, public "investment", even more consumption, peoples QE etc are going to be met with derision across the board.

Labour need to get real. If they want to oppose the benefit cap, for example, they need to explain how much that would cost, who would pay for it and why that would help the economy grow faster. When even the likes of Danny Blanchflower is in despair at their direction and statements Osborne gets a free ride.

People who work in manufacuring don't expect more for less from their workforces, we expect productivity from working smarter.

We don't agree with sweat shops - we're not lawyers you know.

welshowl

Yes there are issues. Google was far from great to say the least. The balance of payments is a shambles (and eventually will be a problem), skills remain a weak area, housing is a serious issue, even if just viewed from the narrow economic focus of labour mobility, so yes Labour should focus on this. However, no matter what the (real) failings of GO are, the idea that we should hand over the good running of our economic well being to a man seen wielding Mao's little red book a few weeks ago and his mate Jezza is just plain unimaginable. The stuff of nightmarish, stuff the mattress with cash, sauve qui peut, horror.

I was talking to my pension guy the other day and we both agreed that should, in some parallel universe, the current Labour party even look like a sniff of power we would both be unbolting anything we could from whatever we had and sending abroad to the safety of foreign assets pronto in advance. I suspect we are not alone, and until Labour can remove that naked fear (for fear it is), it's a long way back.

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

Whilst I agree that obtaining economic credibility is a pre-requisite of Labour's recovery they are heading in the opposite direction.

I was involved in what might loosely be called a debate (or slanging match) with Another_Richard and Alanbrooke on here last night. The critique of Osborne's performance is from the right. It claims he has not done enough to cut the deficit, to cut spending, to break up the banks to make them more competitive, to make our industries more competitive (polite speak for getting more for less out of the workforce); to simplify and cut taxes etc.

I was defending him and will continue to do so but, possibly other than the break up of the big banks, it is difficult to see anything in that agenda that is not going to be anathema to McDonnell. His solutions of even more borrowing, public "investment", even more consumption, peoples QE etc are going to be met with derision across the board.

Labour need to get real. If they want to oppose the benefit cap, for example, they need to explain how much that would cost, who would pay for it and why that would help the economy grow faster. When even the likes of Danny Blanchflower is in despair at their direction and statements Osborne gets a free ride.

Cameron's skill is that he attracts support from both the left and the right.

Osborne's skill is that he attracts the opprobrium of both the left and the right, and maintains his position only through patronage and hanging off the coat tails of Cameron.

Richard_Nabavi

runnymede said:

Where Osborne has demonstrably failed I think is in the area of reform. He has missed the opportunity afforded by May's election result to press ahead with long-overdue reform and rationalisation of the tax system.

Like his boss, he seems unable to get over having lost the excuse for inaction that was the Lib Dems.

Now, that is a more sensible criticism than most. Whether the majority is large enough to do the necessary radical reform is doubtful, though. The tax credits affair suggests not.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.

No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.

Oh that old chestnut. You wheel it out once a quarter.

read back posts if you can be bothered, critics of Osborne have over the years been specific on what they think needs to be done.

Alanbrooke

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Whilst I agree that obtaining economic credibility is a pre-requisite of Labour's recovery they are heading in the opposite direction.

I was involved in what might loosely be called a debate (or slanging match) with Another_Richard and Alanbrooke on here last night. The critique of Osborne's performance is from the right. It claims he has not done enough to cut the deficit, to cut spending, to break up the banks to make them more competitive, to make our industries more competitive (polite speak for getting more for less out of the workforce); to simplify and cut taxes etc.

I was defending him and will continue to do so but, possibly other than the break up of the big banks, it is difficult to see anything in that agenda that is not going to be anathema to McDonnell. His solutions of even more borrowing, public "investment", even more consumption, peoples QE etc are going to be met with derision across the board.

Labour need to get real. If they want to oppose the benefit cap, for example, they need to explain how much that would cost, who would pay for it and why that would help the economy grow faster. When even the likes of Danny Blanchflower is in despair at their direction and statements Osborne gets a free ride.

Cameron's skill is that he attracts support from both the left and the right.

Osborne's skill is that he attracts the opprobrium of both the left and the right, and maintains his position only through patronage and hanging off the coat tails of Cameron.

good summary

Richard_Nabavi

Alanbrooke said:

Oh that old chestnut. You wheel it out once a quarter

Yes, I'm very restrained!

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Oh that old chestnut. You wheel it out once a quarter

Yes, I'm very restrained!

You ought to be.

In a jacket that buttons up from the back :-)

Richard_Nabavi

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Oh that old chestnut. You wheel it out once a quarter

Yes, I'm very restrained!

You ought to be.

In a jacket that buttons up from the back :-)

LOL!

JonCisBack

The cost of housing in general, as well as the inevitable associated cost of housing benefit as a result, is a key and valid criticism of the government. And it's a big criticism.

But in other areas the government, whilst nowhere near perfect, can point to higher than average economic growth, fast falling unemployment and low inflation as major wins.

Labour's lurch to the left only widens the economic credibility gap, even if the tories are far from scoring a 10/10 on economic matters.

SouthamObserver

McDonnell is an imbecile whose support for terrorism make him unfit to hold office. Corbyn, an apologist for the friends of terrorism, appointed him. Until Labour deals with that they have absolutely no chance of ever being heard on anything.

DavidL

runnymede said:

Where Osborne has demonstrably failed I think is in the area of reform. He has missed the opportunity afforded by May's election result to press ahead with long-overdue reform and rationalisation of the tax system.

Like his boss, he seems unable to get over having lost the excuse for inaction that was the Lib Dems.

Tax reform is something Chancellors do when they have money to play with so the losers/moaners can be bought off. See Nigel Lawson in the late 80s as a classic example. Osborne has never been in that position. That means reforms are going to seriously hurt a lot of people. Those that gain, as usual, will say very little.

Osborne has been radical in tax reform but it has all been about getting more money in. So we have had GAAR, aggressive anti-avoidance measures including an obligation to pay up front where the debt is disputed, international treaties and disclosure agreements with tax havens and most recently a go at BTL. None of this simplifies the tax code, quite the reverse. Simplification cost money.

watford30

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

runnymede

'Whether the majority is large enough to do the necessary radical reform is doubtful, though'

Rubbish - that's just enough fig leaf. He simply isn't interested, in the same way that neither he nor his boss are interested in curbing immigration.

HurstLlama

Plato_Says said:

Seriously, there are a handful here so much harder line that the Tories wouldn't have won enough in 2010 or 2015.

It may frustrate you, but most are happy enough.

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

PBers have been arguing against Osborne's competence since 2011 and each year the number of voices is growing.

like Brown, his record is now catching him up.

Depends what you mean by harder line, Miss P. I think the people in 2010 particularly knew we were in the shit and would have been receptive to some big moves to rebalance the economy away from one so blatantly based on consumption and finance - providing the we are all in this together message that Cameron and Co spoke of but didn't act upon. Even in 2015 they could have got away with it (freed from the SHackles of LibDemmery, massive structural deficit, serious work has to be done because another recession is coming etc.).

Osborne has shied away from all of that, preferring to salami slice government spending rather than re-think what government needs to do and ensure that those bits are properly funded. Wealth creation is still lagging behind wealth consumption and wealth export under Osborne's stewardship. We still have a massive structural deficit and a current account deficit that is truly horrendous and Osborne is still spending money like a drunken clipper-hand in port.

Tim_B

I watched MSNBC coverage of the Iowa Caucuses for a while this morning, interested in seeing which candidate had the most ads. I was surprised, because the answer is Jublia, a product that fights toenail fungus.

flightpath01

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

Correct.
And the govt are doing quite a bit on investment and skills - I am sure it would do more if it had a magic money tree
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/department-for-business-innovation-and-skills-settlement-at-the-spending-review-2015
''protecting funding for the core adult skills participations budgets in cash terms creating 5 National Colleges, and providing funding for a real terms protection for the overall STEM subjects in higher education (HE)
delivering 3 million high quality apprenticeships by 2020''
''Science funding of £4.7 billion will be protected in real terms over the Parliament.''
''The government commits to funding aerospace and automotive technologies for 10 years.
This will provide over £1 billion additional funding for innovation in these sectors.
By 2019 to 2020, government spending on apprenticeships will have doubled in cash terms compared to 2010 to 2011''

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/01/if-corbyns-labour-has-to-have-any-chance-in-needs-to-win-back-trust-on-the-economy/#vanilla-comments
''£100 billion in infrastructure spending by 2020.''
''the new National Infrastructure Commission,''
''asset sales which the Treasury expects to raise billions of pounds is being identified to be ploughed back into infrastructure projects, ''
''northern connectivity...London’s transport system...energy...shake Britain out of its inertia on infrastructure...think long-term and deliver a cross-party consensus''

williamglenn

Tim_B said:

I was surprised, because the answer is Jublia, a product that fights toenail fungus.

Was the slogan 'Kill Hard'?

Pulpstar

Tim_B said:

I watched MSNBC coverage of the Iowa Caucuses for a while this morning, interested in seeing which candidate had the most ads. I was surprised, because the answer is Jublia, a product that fights toenail fungus.

Probably more palatable to alot of Iowans than any of the candidates I'd imagine !

Big_G_NorthWales

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Assume he doesn't want to get into child's play. McDonnell needs to grow up but then with his extreme views it doesn't really matter

felix

Memo to Mr Brind - the bigger font just makes the rubbish easier to read.

Big_G_NorthWales

See the Junior Doctors are going on strike again. The Public will rapidly lose faith in them at this rate

SimonStClare

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Just because the shadow chancellor wishes to indulge in silly stunts that are prone to backfire on the offender, does not mean it is necessarily wise to follow suit. Best ignored.

MaxPB

JonCisBack said:

Labour's lurch to the left only widens the economic credibility gap, even if the tories are far from scoring a 10/10 on economic matters.

Well that's the point, the coalition probably got a solid 7/10 on the economy, not perfect but on the whole a decent record, Labour scored a poor 4/10 (IMO) which means they had a pretty big credibility gap which they couldn't overcome at the election. The current majority Con has a lower score than the coalition IMO, maybe 5/10 which is a poor effort and the major u-turns have hurt the government a lot and now this new tax on the middle class private sector is going to hurt even more. However, Labour under these two clowns score 1/10, maybe even 0/10 so even if the government has lost credibility the gap between Labour and the Conservatives has become even bigger than it was when Ed and Ed were in charge.

logical_song

Plato_Says said:

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

Nominative determinism, my favourite is:
Cardinal Sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

Pulpstar

Perhaps the truth about Osborne is somewhere between Richard Nabavi and Another Richard's viewpoint ?

DecrepitJohnL

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Osborne is on PAYE. My guess is he smells a cunning plan to later shift the focus onto those members of the Cabinet with extensive outside interests.

Which leaves McDonnell having taken the heat off Osborne over Google by getting everyone to talk about whether his own tax return is on the wrong form. Genius.

Pulpstar

Big_G_NorthWales said:

See the Junior Doctors are going on strike again. The Public will rapidly lose faith in them at this rate

I note that my two Junior Doctor friends on Facebook have posted other anti-Conservative stuff than the JD row.

Plato_Says

Ha!

I miss Larry Speakes.

logical_song said:

Plato_Says said:

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

Nominative determinism, my favourite is:
Cardinal Sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

Pulpstar

DecrepitJohnL said:

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Osborne is on PAYE. My guess is he smells a cunning plan to later shift the focus onto those members of the Cabinet with extensive outside interests.

Which leaves McDonnell having taken the heat off Osborne over Google by getting everyone to talk about whether his own tax return is on the wrong form. Genius.

McDonnell providing the gunpowder for George to fire at Boris

Richard_Nabavi

In support of runnymede's point about tax reform, here are the nominal marginal tax rates for earned income, including employer's and employee's NI. I define the "nominal marginal tax rate" as (income tax + employee's NI + employer's NI) / annual salary. The actual cost to the employer is the annual salary + employer's NI, so you could argue that the denominator should include employer's NI; however, my 'nominal marginal tax rate' is more useful for tax planning purposes.

Basic rate taxpayer: 45.8%
Higher-rate taxpayer up to £100K: 55.8%
£100K to £121K: 75.8%
£121K to £150K: 55.8%
£150K+: 60.8%

Completely bonkers.

It's also very striking how high the so-called basic rate is.

Figures are for current tax year, and exclude the child-benefit effect (which for those affected gives another hike of marginal rate at £50K).

HurstLlama

flightpath01 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Anyway, it's bloody hard to argue against Osborne's competence when we're doing better than comparable economies, unemployment is falling, the economy is growing, and real wages are rising. Labour's best hope - if it were even vaguely credible - would be to neutralise the issue, as Blair, Mandelson and Brown did so brilliantly in the lead-up to 1997. Fat chance of that under Corbyn and McDonnell.

Correct.
And the govt are doing quite a bit on investment and skills - I am sure it would do more if it had a magic money tree
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/department-for-business-innovation-and-skills-settlement-at-the-spending-review-2015
''protecting funding for the core adult skills participations budgets in cash terms creating 5 National Colleges, and providing funding for a real terms protection for the overall STEM subjects in higher education (HE)
delivering 3 million high quality apprenticeships by 2020''
''Science funding of £4.7 billion will be protected in real terms over the Parliament.''
''The government commits to funding aerospace and automotive technologies for 10 years.
This will provide over £1 billion additional funding for innovation in these sectors.
By 2019 to 2020, government spending on apprenticeships will have doubled in cash terms compared to 2010 to 2011''

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/01/if-corbyns-labour-has-to-have-any-chance-in-needs-to-win-back-trust-on-the-economy/#vanilla-comments
''£100 billion in infrastructure spending by 2020.''
''the new National Infrastructure Commission,''
''asset sales which the Treasury expects to raise billions of pounds is being identified to be ploughed back into infrastructure projects, ''
''northern connectivity...London’s transport system...energy...shake Britain out of its inertia on infrastructure...think long-term and deliver a cross-party consensus''

Mr. Path, full respect, but quoting inputs was a classic symptom of Brown's stewardship. Inputs are not really a useful measure, particularly when it comes to state spending, and are commonly invoked by government PR types when questions of piss-poor outcomes are raised.

MaxPB

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.

No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.

Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.

Plato_Says

Stephen Bush
The Election That Never Was looking more and more like Labour's last chance every day. https://t.co/JzgNV4ngZF

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

logical_song said:

Plato_Says said:

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

Nominative determinism, my favourite is:
Cardinal Sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

In Popbitch recently they reported on a football match involving a Met Police side.
It ended 1-1 with the scorers being Sweeney and Todd.

Sunil_Prasannan

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

logical_song said:

Plato_Says said:

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

Nominative determinism, my favourite is:
Cardinal Sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

In Popbitch recently they reported on a football match involving a Met Police side.
It ended 1-1 with the scorers being Sweeney and Todd.

Was the match played near Fleet Street?

Richard_Nabavi

MaxPB said:

Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.

Fine, but we are talking about political reality here.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

runnymede said:

Where Osborne has demonstrably failed I think is in the area of reform. He has missed the opportunity afforded by May's election result to press ahead with long-overdue reform and rationalisation of the tax system.

Like his boss, he seems unable to get over having lost the excuse for inaction that was the Lib Dems.

Tax reform is something Chancellors do when they have money to play with so the losers/moaners can be bought off. See Nigel Lawson in the late 80s as a classic example. Osborne has never been in that position. That means reforms are going to seriously hurt a lot of people. Those that gain, as usual, will say very little.

Osborne has been radical in tax reform but it has all been about getting more money in. So we have had GAAR, aggressive anti-avoidance measures including an obligation to pay up front where the debt is disputed, international treaties and disclosure agreements with tax havens and most recently a go at BTL. None of this simplifies the tax code, quite the reverse. Simplification cost money.

I've always been of the view that there are two types of Chancellor: simplifiers and meddlers.

Brown was a meddler. Lamont was a meddler. Howe and Lawson were simplifiers.

I had high hopes Osborne would be a simplifier, and he started off pointing in the right direction. But he has turned into a meddler.

Plato_Says

Katabasis
The @guardian claims it receives up to 65,000 "problematic" comments every day.

Perhaps the commenters aren't the problem.

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

In support of runnymede's point about tax reform, here are the nominal marginal tax rates for earned income, including employer's and employee's NI. I define the "nominal marginal tax rate" as (income tax + employee's NI + employer's NI) / annual salary. The actual cost to the employer is the annual salary + employer's NI, so you could argue that the denominator should include employer's NI; however, my 'nominal marginal tax rate' is more useful for tax planning purposes.

Basic rate taxpayer: 45.8%
Higher-rate taxpayer up to £100K: 55.8%
£100K to £121K: 75.8%
£121K to £150K: 55.8%
£150K+: 60.8%

Completely bonkers.

It's also very striking how high the so-called basic rate is.

Figures are for current tax year, and exclude the child-benefit effect (which for those affected gives another hike of marginal rate at £50K).

You can add on student loans for an (ever increasing) portion of the populace.

AlastairMeeks

Gordon Brown got 11 years before his luck ran out. George Osborne will be lucky if he gets as long.

That will be no use to Labour if they are still less trusted.

Charles

Tim_B said:

I watched MSNBC coverage of the Iowa Caucuses for a while this morning, interested in seeing which candidate had the most ads. I was surprised, because the answer is Jublia, a product that fights toenail fungus.

A product that Valeant can only sell through creative tactics related to specialty pharmacies and reimbursement. One which doctors won't prescribe through choice so the company has to spend a huge amount on DTC advertising to create patient demand?

That Jublia?

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

The problem for Labour is that even if this happens, Corbyn's opened up massive weakness on Defence, sovereignty (Falklands) and migration.

Roger

Alanbrooke said:

Buy popcorn, Cherie Blair suing HMG over buy to let.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12128905/Cherie-Blair-fires-first-shot-in-legal-battle-against-Governments-buy-to-let-tax.html

The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman

Morris_Dancer

F1: sounds like Magnussen may replace Maldonado at Renault.

madasafish

"Ashworth cites the Centre for Cities report which, he says, shows that far from the UK becoming the “high wage, low welfare” economy the Chancellor claims “many cities are moving in the opposite direction, with workers plagued by low paid jobs and rising living costs."

Causes:
White flight to the suburbs.
and
immigrants on welfare..

They vote Labour and get MPs who do nothing for them - under Labour's 40 years in power Glasgow got poorer and more ill..

I suspect the Tories don't care..

watford30

DecrepitJohnL said:

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Osborne is on PAYE. My guess is he smells a cunning plan to later shift the focus onto those members of the Cabinet with extensive outside interests.

Which leaves McDonnell having taken the heat off Osborne over Google by getting everyone to talk about whether his own tax return is on the wrong form. Genius.

Presumably Osborne is on the receiving end of healthy dividends from the family wallpaper business. As for his rivals, their outside interests will already be registered and publicly accessible.

SimonStClare

Plato_Says said:

Stephen Bush
The Election That Never Was looking more and more like Labour's last chance every day. https://t.co/JzgNV4ngZF

Funny how we can look back at Brown’s low points and now grasp they were Lab’s high point.

AndyJS

madasafish said:

"Ashworth cites the Centre for Cities report which, he says, shows that far from the UK becoming the “high wage, low welfare” economy the Chancellor claims “many cities are moving in the opposite direction, with workers plagued by low paid jobs and rising living costs."

Causes:
White flight to the suburbs.
and
immigrants on welfare..

They vote Labour and get MPs who do nothing for them - under Labour's 40 years in power Glasgow got poorer and more ill..

I suspect the Tories don't care..

That's why they vote SNP now in Glasgow.

Pulpstar

For the Tories, who is the alternative ?

Theresa May although I'm not a massive fan on her authoritarian streak would most likely be competent.
PM Boris is a possibility, but Jeesh ye gods.
I'd have Osborne over them any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Especially Boris.

Although slightly embarrassing, the tax credit U-turn will have got Osborne some supporters in the bag.

Michael Gove perhaps would be my choice of the cabinet I guess.

Charles

Pulpstar said:

Perhaps the truth about Osborne is somewhere between Richard Nabavi and Another Richard's viewpoint ?

Cannon to the left,
Cannon to the right
Volly'd and thundered

MaxPB

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.

Fine, but we are talking about political reality here.

Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.

watford30

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Buy popcorn, Cherie Blair suing HMG over buy to let.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12128905/Cherie-Blair-fires-first-shot-in-legal-battle-against-Governments-buy-to-let-tax.html

The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman

What are you rattling on about? Rachman died in 1962.

Plato_Says

The Falklands was so stupid to cite. The terrorism stuff was bad, but the Islanders are British territory now, and they like it that way. It's beyond bizarre.

Subs without nukes is the icing on the cake for stupidity.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

The problem for Labour is that even if this happens, Corbyn's opened up massive weakness on Defence, sovereignty (Falklands) and migration.

SimonStClare

watford30 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

watford30 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Did we ever find out why John McDonnell didn't fill in an SA102MP form with his tax return?

Is there a reason Osborne hasn't risen to the challenge and published his?

Osborne is on PAYE. My guess is he smells a cunning plan to later shift the focus onto those members of the Cabinet with extensive outside interests.

Which leaves McDonnell having taken the heat off Osborne over Google by getting everyone to talk about whether his own tax return is on the wrong form. Genius.

Presumably Osborne is on the receiving end of healthy dividends from the family wallpaper business. As for his rivals, their outside interests will already be registered and publicly accessible.

Osborne apparently receives less the £2K per annum for his shares in the family business.

HurstLlama

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Nuts Richard. Back in 2011 when I remarked Osborne had chickened out from making necessary reforms I was something of a lone voice. Sitting on PB now when we can see 6 years of Osborne doing very little but play politics I no longer feel quite so isolated and can see the balance of opinion steadily moving my way.

No one has ever explained what different measures he should have taken. We get plenty of moans, and identifying of problems - some of which are justified - but Chancellors don't get to wave magic wands, they get to set tax rates or set spending priorities. The silence about what he should have done differently is golden.

Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.

Mr. Max, some years ago the Conservative party position was that the income tax net should not be drawn up too highly. If too many people fell out of the net, so the thinking went, then they would actually have less stake in what HMG did and be less likely to consider the effect of a change in government. If he Peters can vote to steal from the Pauls then it is probably best to restrict the number of Peters.

Under Cameron the Conservatives have forgotten that idea and seized upon the LIbDems one that only the relatively well off and above should pay, but everyone should have a say on how much. Problems were bound to arise.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

For the Tories, who is the alternative ?

Theresa May although I'm not a massive fan on her authoritarian streak would most likely be competent.
PM Boris is a possibility, but Jeesh ye gods.
I'd have Osborne over them any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Especially Boris.

Although slightly embarrassing, the tax credit U-turn will have got Osborne some supporters in the bag.

Michael Gove perhaps would be my choice of the cabinet I guess.

Not if he has to make up the difference by taxing middle class private sector workers, you know, the people that vote Tory.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, quite. Corbyn's stupid.

Richard_Nabavi

MaxPB said:

Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.

He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.

Plato_Says

The TV feed committing suicide during EdM's speech and Predators vs Producers - mere passing blips.

SimonStClare said:

Plato_Says said:

Stephen Bush
The Election That Never Was looking more and more like Labour's last chance every day. https://t.co/JzgNV4ngZF

Funny how we can look back at Brown’s low points and now grasp they were Lab’s high point.

taffys

''The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time. ''

It wasn't the lords that made Osborne U-turn, I suspect, it was the many tory waverers who panicked at the first whiff of gunpowder.

watford30

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Eliminate all in-work benefits and tax credits and employer's NI, increase the minimum wage to £10/h, raise the thresholds with inflation once we hit £10k so we begin to widen the tax net again. I'm all for taxing people less overall, but we've come to the point where the tax net doesn't have enough people in it so the government have been reduced to getting more out of fewer people, it is the exact opposite of what they have done with corporation tax.

Fine, but we are talking about political reality here.

Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.

Freed of the deadwood of the LibDems, the Tories could have kicked off reform of the tax system and more, in May 2015. It's all turning out to be a disappointment, and there are another 4.5 years of inactivity to go.

tlg86

AlastairMeeks said:

Gordon Brown got 11 years before his luck ran out. George Osborne will be lucky if he gets as long.

That will be no use to Labour if they are still less trusted.

Or if they get into power. What's the point of Labour winning power if the economy is ******?

Alistair

Richard_Nabavi said:

In support of runnymede's point about tax reform, here are the nominal marginal tax rates for earned income, including employer's and employee's NI. I define the "nominal marginal tax rate" as (income tax + employee's NI + employer's NI) / annual salary. The actual cost to the employer is the annual salary + employer's NI, so you could argue that the denominator should include employer's NI; however, my 'nominal marginal tax rate' is more useful for tax planning purposes.

Basic rate taxpayer: 45.8%
Higher-rate taxpayer up to £100K: 55.8%
£100K to £121K: 75.8%
£121K to £150K: 55.8%
£150K+: 60.8%

Completely bonkers.

It's also very striking how high the so-called basic rate is.

Figures are for current tax year, and exclude the child-benefit effect (which for those affected gives another hike of marginal rate at £50K).

Am I getting my figures wrong?

Someone on £60k.
Income Tax £13403 (£6357 at 20%, £7046 at 40%)
National Insurance: £4471 (employee), £7160 (employer)

Comes out at 42%.

Someone on £30k
Income Tax £3880
National Insurance: £2632 (employee), £3020 (employer)

Comes out at 32%

Have you forgotten the tax free allowance?

EDIT: I AM A DUMMY AND MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE STATING

MaxPB

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.

He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.

Rubbish, he could have put it in the finance bill and dared the Lords to vote it down. He is timid and weak.

Where is Osborne's march of the makers? Where is this apprenticeship revolution he has talked so much about? Why is the diverted profits tax not working? He is weak and now that the perennial excuse of "the Lib Dems blocked it" isn't available it is becoming obvious that Osborne is the roadblock to bold reforms in taxation and benefits.

Richard_Nabavi

Alistair said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

In support of runnymede's point about tax reform, here are the nominal marginal tax rates for earned income, including employer's and employee's NI. I define the "nominal marginal tax rate" as (income tax + employee's NI + employer's NI) / annual salary. The actual cost to the employer is the annual salary + employer's NI, so you could argue that the denominator should include employer's NI; however, my 'nominal marginal tax rate' is more useful for tax planning purposes.

Basic rate taxpayer: 45.8%
Higher-rate taxpayer up to £100K: 55.8%
£100K to £121K: 75.8%
£121K to £150K: 55.8%
£150K+: 60.8%

Completely bonkers.

It's also very striking how high the so-called basic rate is.

Figures are for current tax year, and exclude the child-benefit effect (which for those affected gives another hike of marginal rate at £50K).

Am I getting my figures wrong?

Someone on £60k.
Income Tax £13403 (£6357 at 20%, £7046 at 40%)
National Insurance: £4471 (employee), £7160 (employer)

Comes out at 42%.

Someone on £30k
Income Tax £3880
National Insurance: £2632 (employee), £3020 (employer)

Comes out at 32%

Have you forgotten the tax free allowance?

I posted the marginal rates, sorry I should have made it clear that the numerator was additional income tax + NI per £1 of additional salary.

SquareRoot

As Dom Brind says "Labour have the ammunition"

.... but its only small bore and they keep shooting themselves in the foot.. McDonnell as Chancellor... = parallel universe

Sean_F

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

logical_song said:

Plato_Says said:

Jim Pickard
This is scarcely believable:

"Head of Council legal service...Hubert Legal is the top lawyer for EU leaders"

https://t.co/TQKDWSIq7P

Nominative determinism, my favourite is:
Cardinal Sin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Sin

In Popbitch recently they reported on a football match involving a Met Police side.
It ended 1-1 with the scorers being Sweeney and Todd.

His Honour, Judge Igor Judge (subsequently Lord Chief Justice) and Archibishop Worlock.

Casino_Royale

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Therein lies Osborne's problem, especially today with a majority government and a completely divided opposition. He isn't making bold moves, instead delaying and u-turning every time he is challenged. The tax credits fiasco is the prime example. Instead of ploughing ahead and telling the Lords where they can stick their objections he u-turned and now middle class private sector workers are about to get clobbered to pay for people's lifestyle choices of having too many children and working part time.

He retreated on tax credits because he didn't have enough support in the two chambers to get the original measure through in full. That doesn't support the contention that he could be more radical.

Nonsense. It passed clearly in the Commons and a modified proposal would have passed the Lords.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Roger said:

Alanbrooke said:

Buy popcorn, Cherie Blair suing HMG over buy to let.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12128905/Cherie-Blair-fires-first-shot-in-legal-battle-against-Governments-buy-to-let-tax.html

The day she opened the door in Downing St half asleep wearing just a T-shirt I was her biggest fan. Who'd have guessed 17 years later she's be acting for Rachman

It was the family home in Islington where the nightshirt thing happened iirc

Plato_Says

The Tories have sawn off shotguns at point blank range. It's like shooting sardines in the tin.

SquareRoot said:

As Dom Brind says "Labour have the ammunition"

.... but its only small bore and they keep shooting themselves in the foot.. McDonnell as Chancellor... = parallel universe