Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less

245

Comments

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usually so reasoned and reasonable, on this particular issue you keep bringing up that you do not have millions to move out of country in a way that makes it seem those who disagree with your view are motivated for that reason, and that would seem unkind, unreasonable and unwarranted if that was your intention. Even if your assessment is correct and others' are not, that doesn't mean they blindly follow propaganda, they may have assessed the risk differently, and whether you have millions or they have millions is irrelevant so why bring it up?

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    During my time at university when we were learning about the Annales school we were taught about how there were different generations, such as the focus on the study of mentalities, but we were essentially told that the fourth generation, which had been ongoing for, I don't know, 15-20 years, still hadn't really defined what it was about, with the arguments still ongoing. I don't recall how fair I felt that was at the time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Sean_F said:

    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.

    Do you have a link? I can't find a reference and it seems extraordinary that anyone with a brain would do something so crass as this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited October 2017
    stodge said:


    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    I was just curious why the focus, given you rarely repeat yourself, but I appreciate your response - perhaps I would feel differently were I wealthy, but I don't feel I would move simply out of fear of paying more tax. And though I have grave doubts about a Corbyn government being more than merely crappy (which is baseline expectation of government) I doubt things would go so badly I would fear it could never be overcome, and so might as well leave.
  • stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usually so reasoned and reasonable, on this particular issue you keep bringing up that you do not have millions to move out of country in a way that makes it seem those who disagree with your view are motivated for that reason, and that would seem unkind, unreasonable and unwarranted if that was your intention. Even if your assessment is correct and others' are not, that doesn't mean they blindly follow propaganda, they may have assessed the risk differently, and whether you have millions or they have millions is irrelevant so why bring it up?

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s. If you can afford to leave then why not.
  • Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usu

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    stodge said:

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    People, including Macdonnell, allege that the Tories murder their political enemies (cf Grenfell). And Momentum have recently hanged members of the Conservative party in effigy. A journalist had to have a bodyguard to attend their conference after threats were made.

    Labour are showing a really unpleasant side at this moment and although it seems probable it's all talk I wouldn't blame their targets for being worried. If Mosley were alive today I don't think he'd feel the need to leave them to indulge his wilder fantasies.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usu

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/rate-income-tax-budget-labour

    The key impact it had was to send everyone eligible abroad so they didn't have to pay it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017

    Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
  • Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.
    Curious.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
    Wasn't the idea of that to help catch him? Blurring the face would have made that difficult!
  • Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
    The runner wasn't under arrest, they flagged it as a person police were looking for.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.

    Do you have a link? I can't find a reference and it seems extraordinary that anyone with a brain would do something so crass as this.
    From their website. Saw something on Twitter a couple of days ago, an eyebrow rose.

    http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/1326/rotherham_council_in_line_to_be_social_work_employer_of_the_year
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017

    Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
    The runner wasn't under arrest, they flagged it as a person police were looking for.
    They still showed it even when they arrested the wrong person.

    Better example, I have never seen them blur those arrested at like the student fee riots.

    I actually don't remember them blurring faces before. I wondered if it was some new rules / or new tv media policy. I notice the guardian have blurred the face too.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    kle4 said:

    stodge said:


    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    I was just curious why the focus, given you rarely repeat yourself, but I appreciate your response - perhaps I would feel differently were I wealthy, but I don't feel I would move simply out of fear of paying more tax. And though I have grave doubts about a Corbyn government being more than merely crappy (which is baseline expectation of government) I doubt things would go so badly I would fear it could never be overcome, and so might as well leave.
    That's a very fair and reasonable response, my friend.
  • MP_SE2MP_SE2 Posts: 77
    Sean_F said:

    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.

    Rotherham Council are rotten to the core.

    https://twitter.com/RMBCPress/status/902846893608329216
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited October 2017
    dr_spyn said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.

    Do you have a link? I can't find a reference and it seems extraordinary that anyone with a brain would do something so crass as this.
    From their website. Saw something on Twitter a couple of days ago, an eyebrow rose.

    http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/1326/rotherham_council_in_line_to_be_social_work_employer_of_the_year
    That's ridiculous. Even if they have improved that must feel like a slap in the face to every victim. It would be a bit like Albert Speer being given the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of Erinnerungen.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    Sean_F said:

    FPT, while that Yougov poll is not bad for the SNP, I wouldn't call it good either. They'd lose ground in the Scottish Parliament.

    Sean, importantly, Nicola Sturgeon knows that she would lose yet more ground at the next Holyrood election as her hopes of delivering and winning another Indy Referendum becomes ever more unlikely. The media narrative is changing as the increasing list of domestic problems begin to dominate the news instead of constituitional issues as internal SNP critics begin to find their voices. There is even talk of the fact that to remain in power next time, the SNP would need to do some sort of deal with SLab and that is a possibility that neither party really wants to take hold in the media or among their target voters in the run up to next election.

    I suspect that Sturgeon has already made the private decision to stand down as SNP leader before the next Holyrood elections, and now its just a question of choosing the right time to bow out. Sturgeon is already beginning to resemble a Leader looking foward to going on gardening leave rather than a politician laden with further ambition to fight another election. A real problem for the SNP is their mediocre Holyrood Government team, if there is a budding new Salmond or Sturgeon waiting in the wings they are keeping themselves well hidden.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Eye witnesses say the driver was laughing his head off when he was being arrested...if not terrorism, got to think guy has other issues.

    There was a nasty accident by my childrens' school at 8am the other morning. A man and a woman, completely off their heads (and we're not talking alcohol) ploughed into a car by a pedestrian crossing where the kids were going into school.

    Mercifully they weren't going quickly, and the injuries were minor, but the driver and her passenger were so out of it they really had no idea what was going on.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    ydoethur said:



    People, including Macdonnell, allege that the Tories murder their political enemies (cf Grenfell). And Momentum have recently hanged members of the Conservative party in effigy. A journalist had to have a bodyguard to attend their conference after threats were made.

    Labour are showing a really unpleasant side at this moment and although it seems probable it's all talk I wouldn't blame their targets for being worried. If Mosley were alive today I don't think he'd feel the need to leave them to indulge his wilder fantasies.

    I have to say I really think you're reaching a bit here. Churchill claimed Attlee would need a "Gestapo" to run Britain if he took power which was completely absurd and deeply insulting to a Party leader who had served loyally as DPM during the war time coalition.

    The antics of some on the extremes of Momentum have to be condemned and I'll join that condemnation willingly but there's a world of difference between that and any kind of actual politically-motivated violence against individuals.

    People have a right to be angry and to express that anger and the immediate survivors of Grenfell had more right than any to be angry in all fairness but the fellow travellers of the Left have been around for many years.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T somebody either has a sick sense of humour, or else a very tin ear.

    Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.

    Do you have a link? I can't find a reference and it seems extraordinary that anyone with a brain would do something so crass as this.
    From their website. Saw something on Twitter a couple of days ago, an eyebrow rose.

    http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/news/article/1326/rotherham_council_in_line_to_be_social_work_employer_of_the_year
    That's ridiculous. Even if they have improved that must feel like a slap in the face to every victim. It would be a bit like Albert Speer being given the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of Erinnerungen.
    You would have hoped that someone at Rotherham would have had the good taste to decline the nomination.

    Most of my hopes for Barack Obama evaporated when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't have to.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited October 2017
    stodge said:

    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    You seem very confused. The reason why the prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government means that it is sensible to move financial assets (basically, pensions, for most people) so that they are not dependent on the UK economy has nothing to do with tax on those assets. Instead, the reason is that Corbyn and McDonnell will trash the UK economy, resulting in a big fall in sterling, mass unemployment, and very bad conditions for companies operating here. So you want your pension to be invested elsewhere, in non-sterling denominated assets, or at least diversified.

    This is most particularly important for those who depend on UK employment to provide for their families' income: if their pensions are invested in UK-focused assets, they are doubling the risk, because the conditions which mean their pensions will be hit are the same conditions which mean they might lose their jobs or lose out on salary increases.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.

    As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.

    It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.

    I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    Fill yer boots. :)

    My lay of the year, indeed the last few years, has been David Miliband, as next Labour leader.
    Very doubtful, even if he could find a constituency party that would accept him as a candidate, the general membership of the party would not accept him into the shadow cabinet, or his potential fellow MP's. He bottled a challenge to Brown, and he couldn't win against his own brother in an election supposed to be his coronation, and then left in a strop. Nah!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Presumably the driver of the car is known to the authorities and as such they know he isn't a terrorist. It's nice to know that there are such nutters on our streets.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
    The runner wasn't under arrest, they flagged it as a person police were looking for.
    They still showed it even when they arrested the wrong person.

    Better example, I have never seen them blur those arrested at like the student fee riots.

    I actually don't remember them blurring faces before. I wondered if it was some new rules / or new tv media policy. I notice the guardian have blurred the face too.
    Perhaps the difference is that the images of the jogger (or at least some of them) were released by the Metropolitan Police, and therefore any legal issues about ID had presumably been cleared by them? They were also being released with the purpose of identifying the man.

    Whereas in this incident we didn't know what was going on, or why.

    There might be another reason as well: if he was injured there might be some blood on his face, which the BBC get rather squeamish about at times. Unlikely, admittedly, given the size of the images.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741



    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s. If you can afford to leave then why not.

    It's entirely possible an incoming Labour Government will seek to extract more in taxation from those with higher income.

    Let's say hypothetically McDonnell decided to raise the higher rate threshold to £50,000 but then to charge income from £50,001 to £149,999 at 50% and from £150,000 to £499,999 at 60% and say £500,000 plus at 70%. Not saying he will, just thinking aloud.

    Do you think that will prompt some high earners to publicly leave the country ?

  • One stupidly unsafe factor re. Exhibition Road was Kensington & Chelsea's decision to blur the distinction between the pavement and the road itself. It's very difficult to see where one ends and the other starts.

    (I studied/worked at Imperial for nigh on 10 years up to 2004).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited October 2017
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:



    People, including Macdonnell, allege that the Tories murder their political enemies (cf Grenfell). And Momentum have recently hanged members of the Conservative party in effigy. A journalist had to have a bodyguard to attend their conference after threats were made.

    Labour are showing a really unpleasant side at this moment and although it seems probable it's all talk I wouldn't blame their targets for being worried. If Mosley were alive today I don't think he'd feel the need to leave them to indulge his wilder fantasies.

    I have to say I really think you're reaching a bit here. Churchill claimed Attlee would need a "Gestapo" to run Britain if he took power which was completely absurd and deeply insulting to a Party leader who had served loyally as DPM during the war time coalition.

    The antics of some on the extremes of Momentum have to be condemned and I'll join that condemnation willingly but there's a world of difference between that and any kind of actual politically-motivated violence against individuals.

    People have a right to be angry and to express that anger and the immediate survivors of Grenfell had more right than any to be angry in all fairness but the fellow travellers of the Left have been around for many years.

    Don't see the comparison. Attlee served in government with Churchill, which is why the comparison seemed ludicrous. That said, Laski had claimed Parliament could be overruled by the Labour Party if they got into office which is why Churchill made that remark. Attlee's more measured response was to write a rather sharp letter to Laski, describing him as irresponsible, and commenting 'a period of silence on your part would be welcome'.

    Corbyn is a self-confessed admirer of Hugo Chavez and Ismail Haniyeh. If a man is known by his friends, he'd be a disaster.

    As for Grenfell, Macdonnell was and is exploiting the survivors with ruthlessness and with no care for them.
  • Just wondering why have bbc and sky news blurred the face of the driver in the video, but the daily mail and telegraph haven’t?

    They are regulated by OFCOM who have teeth, whereas for the print media....
    But sky haven’t blurred the still shots, just the video.

    And why would they be worried about ofcom? They didn't blur the video of the runner who pushed the woman in front of the bus.
    The runner wasn't under arrest, they flagged it as a person police were looking for.
    They still showed it even when they arrested the wrong person.

    Better example, I have never seen them blur those arrested at like the student fee riots.

    I actually don't remember them blurring faces before. I wondered if it was some new rules / or new tv media policy. I notice the guardian have blurred the face too.
    Perhaps the difference is that the images of the jogger (or at least some of them) were released by the Metropolitan Police, and therefore any legal issues about ID had presumably been cleared by them? They were also being released with the purpose of identifying the man.

    Whereas in this incident we didn't know what was going on, or why.

    There might be another reason as well: if he was injured there might be some blood on his face, which the BBC get rather squeamish about at times. Unlikely, admittedly, given the size of the images.
    As I say, I don't remember them blurring faces like this before. I wondered if there had been a change in policy at either OFCOM or within the media organizations. But then Sky are happy to show unblurred stills of the individual, just not the video, which I found rather confusing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741



    You seem very confused. The reason why the prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government means that it is sensible to move financial assets (basically, pensions, for most people) so that they are not dependent on the UK economy has nothing to do with tax on those assets. Instead, the reason is that Corbyn and McDonnell will trash the UK economy, resulting in a big fall in sterling, mass unemployment, and very bad conditions for companies operating here. So you want your pension to be invested elsewhere, in non-sterling denominated assets, or at least diversified.

    This is most particularly important for those who depend on UK employment to provide for their families' income: if their pensions are invested in UK-focused assets, they are doubling the risk, because the conditions which mean their pensions will be hit are the same conditions which mean they might lose their jobs or lose out on salary increases.

    I am not "very confused" and perhaps you could try being a bit less patronising and condescending if you know how.

    As an aside, those who hold stocks and pensions in managed funds have done very fall out of the big fall in sterling which occurred after the referendum.

    This is the big fall in sterling which seems to have created record employment and brought tourists here in unprecedented numbers.

    The other truth for many is their principal asset is their property which isn't easy to move offshore (unless it's a boat I suppose).

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    stodge said:



    You seem very confused. The reason why the prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government means that it is sensible to move financial assets (basically, pensions, for most people) so that they are not dependent on the UK economy has nothing to do with tax on those assets. Instead, the reason is that Corbyn and McDonnell will trash the UK economy, resulting in a big fall in sterling, mass unemployment, and very bad conditions for companies operating here. So you want your pension to be invested elsewhere, in non-sterling denominated assets, or at least diversified.

    This is most particularly important for those who depend on UK employment to provide for their families' income: if their pensions are invested in UK-focused assets, they are doubling the risk, because the conditions which mean their pensions will be hit are the same conditions which mean they might lose their jobs or lose out on salary increases.

    I am not "very confused" and perhaps you could try being a bit less patronising and condescending if you know how.

    As an aside, those who hold stocks and pensions in managed funds have done very fall out of the big fall in sterling which occurred after the referendum.

    This is the big fall in sterling which seems to have created record employment and brought tourists here in unprecedented numbers.

    The other truth for many is their principal asset is their property which isn't easy to move offshore (unless it's a boat I suppose).

    But if it's a narrow boat that wouldn't help of course. :smiley:
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.



  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279

    Fpt.

    calum said:

    justin124 said:

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/916632679130558466
    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/916632566974828544

    So it looks like the gloss has come off the SNP in Holyrood - but heh - bung a few more MPs Westminster's way.....(if the Glasgow seats hold out against Corbynmania - now 20 points ahead of Nicola.....)

    I doubt that the SNP would manage 35% at a Westminster election.
    FWIW in the most recent Westminster polling the SNP is actually polling over 40%:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2017-09-19T15:22:00+01:00&max-results=10

    Suffice to say the MSM as are many on this site only seem able to look at opinion polls through the prism of the SNP being a busted flush. I think given the Tories and Labor issues the SNP are as likely to strengthen their current support levels as lose them.
    The SNP Holyrood constituency polling is also higher than in the equivalent month in the 2007 & 2011 parliaments. I'm also pretty sure Salmond had a negative rating during the 2011 parliament. One might think that the SCons being relegated to their customary third place despite the rating for Davidson might give pause in the gadarene rush to extoll the 'doing well' metric.

    Yoons, predicting 43 out of the last 0 SNP busted flushes; long may it continue.
    This SNP obsession with polling is becoming ever more desperate as the REAL election result declines start to mount up. The SNP juggernaut stalled and started to fall back in the Autumn of 2015, and more importantly, it shows no signs of being able to recover enough as Sturgeon's personal polling continues to decline at this rate. The big question now is who will replace Sturgeon, and can they do enough in time to turn around the lamentable domestic performance of this tired SNP administration at Holyrood?
  • stodge said:

    I am not "very confused" and perhaps you could try being a bit less patronising and condescending if you know how.

    Well you seemed to be confused, because you wrote that "It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction". In fact the discussions have been about asset allocation.

    A separate point is about whether people would move abroad. Yes, of course some would, if the UK economy was in a dire state so the prospects here were bad, and/or if they were being taxed at absurdly high rates.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    I'd expect him to write them, and then vote against them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited October 2017
    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    She is really a b1tch.
  • fitalass said:

    Fpt.

    calum said:

    justin124 said:

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/916632679130558466
    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/916632566974828544

    So it looks like the gloss has come off the SNP in Holyrood - but heh - bung a few more MPs Westminster's way.....(if the Glasgow seats hold out against Corbynmania - now 20 points ahead of Nicola.....)

    I doubt that the SNP would manage 35% at a Westminster election.
    FWIW in the most recent Westminster polling the SNP is actually polling over 40%:

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2017-09-19T15:22:00+01:00&max-results=10

    Suffice to say the MSM as are many on this site only seem able to look at opinion polls through the prism of the SNP being a busted flush. I think given the Tories and Labor issues the SNP are as likely to strengthen their current support levels as lose them.
    The SNP Holyrood constituency polling is also higher than in the equivalent month in the 2007 & 2011 parliaments. I'm also pretty sure Salmond had a negative rating during the 2011 parliament. One might think that the SCons being relegated to their customary third place despite the rating for Davidson might give pause in the gadarene rush to extoll the 'doing well' metric.

    Yoons, predicting 43 out of the last 0 SNP busted flushes; long may it continue.
    This SNP obsession with polling is becoming ever more desperate as the REAL election result declines start to mount up. The SNP juggernaut stalled and started to fall back in the Autumn of 2015, and more importantly, it shows no signs of being able to recover enough as Sturgeon's personal polling continues to decline at this rate. The big question now is who will replace Sturgeon, and can they do enough in time to turn around the lamentable domestic performance of this tired SNP administration at Holyrood?
    'This SNP obsession with polling'

    'as Sturgeon's personal polling continues to decline at this rate'

    Lol!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    edited October 2017
    Completely OT... Our local Lidls have Tokaji Késői Arany 2013 50cls at £3.99! Bought a dozen; just tried one - bloody lovely with Christmas pud!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    One stupidly unsafe factor re. Exhibition Road was Kensington & Chelsea's decision to blur the distinction between the pavement and the road itself. It's very difficult to see where one ends and the other starts.

    (I studied/worked at Imperial for nigh on 10 years up to 2004).

    Clearly you were intelligent once. What went wrong ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited October 2017
    nielh said:

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    For UK residents with UK domicile (which is nearly all of us), that is already the case, at least as regards overseas income or overseas capital gains. So if he did introduce any tax on asset values, it would surely include foreign assets.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    Rebecca Long Bailey is a solicitor as well, I believe.

    But he would have the civil service and parliamentary counsel, they would be the ones who put the ideas in to action.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    surbiton said:

    One stupidly unsafe factor re. Exhibition Road was Kensington & Chelsea's decision to blur the distinction between the pavement and the road itself. It's very difficult to see where one ends and the other starts.

    (I studied/worked at Imperial for nigh on 10 years up to 2004).

    Clearly you were intelligent once. What went wrong ?
    :lol:
  • Completely OT... Our local Lidls have Tokaji Késői Arany 2013 50cls at £3.99! Bought a dozen; just tried one - bloody lovely with Christmas pud!

    Blimey! That is extraordinary.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Isn't the problem with all this asset relocation business is that governments now share far more data than in the past? It must be a lot harder to get away with simply not reporting assets and income, unless you go outside the OECD.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    nielh said:

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    For UK residents with UK domicile (which is nearly all of us), that is already the case, at least as regards overseas income or overseas capital gains.
    Ok but what if he passes a law to expropriate your assets themselves (ie gimme 10% of your savings, need to buy iphones for disadvantaged kids) ?

    Then, I say this applies if you are a british citizen, irrespective of domicile.

    If you don't pay up you either get fined, go to jail, or get your nationality revoked (banished).
  • There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.

    Indeed, but its a defence against many different kinds of political lunacy.

    Almost acts as a substitute for not having a constitution.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    It's also quite funny when you assume anyone who hates the Jezziah must be a Tory, although it does go a long way to explain why even someone so abject as May can keep floating voters like me on board.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2017

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    What is your CV?

    Do you have a linkedin?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    He's voted against lots of laws, so you would have thought he read them before doing so.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    edited October 2017

    Mr. Eagles, you just like him because he bifurcated Boris' hopes of an easy leadership win.

    I've always liked Michael Gove, he's wasted at MAFF DEFRA.

    I did go off him during the referendum and the nasty xenophobic tone of the Vote Leave campaign, I thought he was better than that.
    Interestingly in our house, it would have been four out of four votes for Gove had he made it onto a final Leadership ballot put to the membership. But for us, it was always going to be a collective vote for the best of a bad bunch, or the anyone but Boris candidate. Boris might reach the parts of the party down South, or those who simple believe that supporting Brexit gifts you with the abilities to lead a party and Government. But Boris is not a politician who reaches out or appeals to the areas of the UK also needed to win a GE. I really rate Gove as an articulate and capable Minister and he is absolutely wasted in his current post. It still angers me that our most effective Brexit politician and Minister was overlooked for the three key Brexit Cabinet posts.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    stodge said:

    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    You seem very confused. The reason why the prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government means that it is sensible to move financial assets (basically, pensions, for most people) so that they are not dependent on the UK economy has nothing to do with tax on those assets. Instead, the reason is that Corbyn and McDonnell will trash the UK economy, resulting in a big fall in sterling, mass unemployment, and very bad conditions for companies operating here. So you want your pension to be invested elsewhere, in non-sterling denominated assets, or at least diversified.

    This is most particularly important for those who depend on UK employment to provide for their families' income: if their pensions are invested in UK-focused assets, they are doubling the risk, because the conditions which mean their pensions will be hit are the same conditions which mean they might lose their jobs or lose out on salary increases.
    Well, there's more than one issue here. At one end of the scale is what you rightly advocate, reducing one's exposure to uk centric stocks, which should be achievable by a few mouse clicks and a few £10s dealing fees, by selling ftse 250 type holdings and buying world and eu ex uk trackers instead. At the other is upping sticks and offshoring oneself and all one's assets, which is only for the super-rich. In the middle there is wanting to offshore capital to guard it from expropriation and, to the extent it is cash, from a sterling crisis (it being very surprisingly difficult to hold foreign currencies in the UK, except in physical cash). There is also offshoring it to avoid tax on the income it generates which is unlikely to be compatible with dealing frankly and honestly with HMRC, but that won't stop people from considering it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    One stupidly unsafe factor re. Exhibition Road was Kensington & Chelsea's decision to blur the distinction between the pavement and the road itself. It's very difficult to see where one ends and the other starts.

    (I studied/worked at Imperial for nigh on 10 years up to 2004).

    This is called shared space and is believed to make all road users more considerate of each other. There's an example near me at the corner of Paul Street and Leonard Street and it seems to work.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usu

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/rate-income-tax-budget-labour

    The key impact it had was to send everyone eligible abroad so they didn't have to pay it.
    However, income tax was riddled with all kinds of exemptions, reliefs, and allowances (even more than today), so nobody who was properly advised paid anything like 98%.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    So Baroness Chakrabti worked for a failed organisation.

    His Brexit Secretary worked for a body that was nicknamed 'Couldn't prosecute Satan.' His Foreign Secretary still isn't sure whether she is a former army officer.

    And that leaves Richard Burgon, whose performance in interviews was of course universally considered pisspoor.

    Oh dear, what have we come to when it's this or Blowjob Bojo?!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You think he is thick as shit. Whereas we know you are shit.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    I've never liked Faisal but calling him [sic], or anyone else, a piece of bile is sadly quite typical of the modern day intolerance on the political left.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.

    I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit :wink:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    One stupidly unsafe factor re. Exhibition Road was Kensington & Chelsea's decision to blur the distinction between the pavement and the road itself. It's very difficult to see where one ends and the other starts.

    (I studied/worked at Imperial for nigh on 10 years up to 2004).

    This is called shared space and is believed to make all road users more considerate of each other. There's an example near me at the corner of Paul Street and Leonard Street and it seems to work.
    I'm afraid my experience of one by Gloucester docks is the opposite - I avoid it at all costs no matter what form of transport I'm using. I think the only vehicle that would be safe there is the tank they parked next to it, although I doubt if that was why they did it!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    felix said:

    I've never liked Faisal but calling him [sic], or anyone else, a piece of bile is sadly quite typical of the modern day intolerance on the political left.
    Haha, you are so funny!
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    surbiton said:

    She is really a b1tch.
    And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    Elliot said:

    I think everyone knows May needs to be replaced before the next election. The question is when is the right time to do it. Waiting has four advantages. The first is that it increases the chance of a good Brexit deal due to not wasting several months for a new leader to bed in. The second is it gives chance for a new generation of potential leaders to emerge. The third is that it means the new leader can't be blamed for any discontent with any Brexit compromises. The fourth is that the new leader will be introduced to the public closer to the general election, so they seem more of a fresh face for change.

    Second that with bells on!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.

    I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit :wink:
    Now there is an interesting philosophical statement!

    I've always wondered about this statement anyway. I mean, what sort of shit are we talking about? Bird shit isn't particularly thick, while elephant poo on the other hand...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    twitter.com/StevePeers/status/916645558344978433

    And what is stopping the UK supreme court from (rightly) refusing to pass any appeal onto the ECJ?
    It's a classic Eurofudge. The UK says "Oh, we will accept the suzerainty of the ECJ, but only when we pass cases to it." The EU says "Hah! They caved and accepted it."

    In reality, no cases are ever sent up. It's win-win.
    I suspect the opposite. The ECJ is neither a substitute for a national court, nor an additional stage in the judicial process. The ECJ provides preliminary hearings - interpretation of the relevant EU law - as a service to national courts. It is then up to those national courts to make their decision, taking into account both the ECJ interpretation and domestic law. National courts apply and enforce those decisions. Currently only the Supreme Court is required to refer to the ECJ; others can choose to do so. I think what this proposal to make Supreme Court referrals optional mean, is that the system trusts the UK's independent judiciary to make the same judgments as they would when the referral is compulsory and also to know when it is necessary to refer to the ECJ.

    I suspect it won't make much difference in practice, but the current ECJ oversight may not be as overbearing as people think it is. There is quite a lot of trust invested in the national judiciaries anyway.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.

    I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit :wink:
    No I am not confusing it. He has never demonstrated any high level of intellectual ability. As soon as he gets pushed on any sort of detail, he starts to fall apart or come out with total bullshit e.g. no idea about the details of custom union vs a custom unions, false stats about poorer students going to university etc etc etc.

    Can he do empathy, ok, kinda, better than the incredible low bar set by May, certainly, at least with those which who have similar politics to him.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    felix said:

    I've never liked Faisal but calling him [sic], or anyone else, a piece of bile is sadly quite typical of the modern day intolerance on the political left.
    Haha, you are so funny!
    See Surbiton's post as well - the infection goes deep. you'll be shrieking 'Tory scum' with the rest of them next.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    She is really a b1tch.
    And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
    You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.

    I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit :wink:
    No I am not confusing it. He has never demonstrated any high level of intellectual ability.

    Can he do empathy, ok, kinda, of those which who have similar politics to him.
    He has great empathy with Venezuela and Palestine, not so good when it comes to Israel...
  • Sean_F said:



    However, income tax was riddled with all kinds of exemptions, reliefs, and allowances (even more than today), so nobody who was properly advised paid anything like 98%.

    The proper advice they normally got was move overseas because in this country you are screwed.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    So Baroness Chakrabti worked for a failed organisation.

    His Brexit Secretary worked for a body that was nicknamed 'Couldn't prosecute Satan.' His Foreign Secretary still isn't sure whether she is a former army officer.

    And that leaves Richard Burgon, whose performance in interviews was of course universally considered pisspoor.

    Oh dear, what have we come to when it's this or Blowjob Bojo?!
    It doesn't matter. The Grey Eminence of his government would be John McDonnell, who is certainly intelligent, and very nasty as well; that's an unpleasant combination.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    No I am not confusing it. He has never demonstrated any high level of intellectual ability. As soon as he gets pushed on any sort of detail, he starts to fall apart or come out with total bullshit e.g. no idea about the details of custom union vs a custom unions, false stats about poorer students going to university etc etc etc.

    Can he do empathy, ok, kinda, better than the incredible low bar set by May, certainly, at least with those which who have similar politics to him.

    I thought it was Rayner came up with false figures on university entrance (which sadly didn't surprise me).

    Wouldn't a better example be that 'deal with it' rubbish he came out with over tuition fee debts before admitting he had no idea what it would cost and no idea how much money was even involved to start with?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    She is really a b1tch.
    And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
    You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
    Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    So Baroness Chakrabti worked for a failed organisation.

    His Brexit Secretary worked for a body that was nicknamed 'Couldn't prosecute Satan.' His Foreign Secretary still isn't sure whether she is a former army officer.

    And that leaves Richard Burgon, whose performance in interviews was of course universally considered pisspoor.

    Oh dear, what have we come to when it's this or Blowjob Bojo?!
    It doesn't matter. The Grey Eminence of his government would be John McDonnell, who is certainly intelligent, and very nasty as well; that's an unpleasant combination.
    The Castlereagh of a later time? - 'put him in one end of the scale, and all the Cabinet in the other - single, he weighed them down.'

    Well, I have to agree with you it seems possible.

    Anyway, I am off. Have a good evening everyone!
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.
    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.
    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.
    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    Churchill.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:

    If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.

    That's at least the second time you've mentioned this millions to move to other countries thing, and I do not quite understand why- are you implying the only reasons people might come to a conclusion as to the risks that is harsher than yours is they are fools buying to propaganda or that they have millions to move out of the country?

    Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usu

    Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?
    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    So Baroness Chakrabti worked for a failed organisation.

    His Brexit Secretary worked for a body that was nicknamed 'Couldn't prosecute Satan.' His Foreign Secretary still isn't sure whether she is a former army officer.

    And that leaves Richard Burgon, whose performance in interviews was of course universally considered pisspoor.

    Oh dear, what have we come to when it's this or Blowjob Bojo?!
    It doesn't matter. The Grey Eminence of his government would be John McDonnell, who is certainly intelligent, and very nasty as well; that's an unpleasant combination.
    I have always said McDonnell is far more dangerous than Corbyn. Corbyn is an idiot trapped in the 70s, but to his credit finds it nearly impossible to comprise his life long held views by saying something he doesn't believe in e.g. shoot to kill stuff and of course the painful limbo dancing over trident.

    McDonnell will argue black is white, e.g. no I never saw those hammer and sickles, never said I'm a Marxist, and say anything he thinks will advance his position in order to enable him to enact his real views.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    Sean_F said:



    However, income tax was riddled with all kinds of exemptions, reliefs, and allowances (even more than today), so nobody who was properly advised paid anything like 98%.

    The proper advice they normally got was move overseas because in this country you are screwed.
    Well, my dad was a high earner in the Seventies, but his accountant (another high earner) found all sorts of ways of reducing his tax bill.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262

    Sean_F said:



    However, income tax was riddled with all kinds of exemptions, reliefs, and allowances (even more than today), so nobody who was properly advised paid anything like 98%.

    The proper advice they normally got was move overseas because in this country you are screwed.
    Pay UK taxes or forsake your UK citizenship.

    If you're living abroad and paying local taxes, fine, they can be offset against your UK tax liability, but you should not be able to pay lower taxes whilst living abroad and yet still retain UK citizenship.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    His Attorney General is likely be Baroness Chakrabati, who is a barrister, and worked for the Home Office.

    His Brexit Secretary is a former DPP and Lady Nugee is a former barrister.

    Richard Burgon is a Cambridge educated solicitor.

    So while Jezza might not be able to write laws, he's surrounded by people who can write laws for him.
    So Baroness Chakrabti worked for a failed organisation.

    His Brexit Secretary worked for a body that was nicknamed 'Couldn't prosecute Satan.' His Foreign Secretary still isn't sure whether she is a former army officer.

    And that leaves Richard Burgon, whose performance in interviews was of course universally considered pisspoor.

    Oh dear, what have we come to when it's this or Blowjob Bojo?!
    It doesn't matter. The Grey Eminence of his government would be John McDonnell, who is certainly intelligent, and very nasty as well; that's an unpleasant combination.
    The Castlereagh of a later time? - 'put him in one end of the scale, and all the Cabinet in the other - single, he weighed them down.'

    Well, I have to agree with you it seems possible.

    Anyway, I am off. Have a good evening everyone!
    That reminds me of my history teacher's comment, about the Conservative Party, after the split with the Peelites. " They only had one brain between them, and that was Disraeli's."
  • Yes, I couldn't agree more, Mike. Corbyn's price for next PM is a complete mystery to me.

    As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.

    It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.

    I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!

    Fill yer boots. :)

    My lay of the year, indeed the last few years, has been David Miliband, as next Labour leader.
    That would have been second best, certainly at some of the odds once available.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    No I am not confusing it. He has never demonstrated any high level of intellectual ability. As soon as he gets pushed on any sort of detail, he starts to fall apart or come out with total bullshit e.g. no idea about the details of custom union vs a custom unions, false stats about poorer students going to university etc etc etc.

    Can he do empathy, ok, kinda, certainly better than the incredible low bar set by May, certainly, at least with those which who have similar politics to him.

    I do expect politicians to have some facility with figures. For example, I do expect them to know to within factor of a few how much their policies will cost.

    If you are proposing a National Care Service, I do expect you to be able to multiply the number of people in care homes by the typical cost of care per year and get an estimate of the annual cost.

    If you are proposing free childcare for 1.3 million youngsters, I do expect you know how much it would cost by multiplying typical childcare costs per hour by number of hours by number of children.

    If you are proposing free university tuition for 1.75 million students, together with the return of maintenance grants, I expect you to be able to figure how much it will cost. Similarly,
    if you propose sorting out the university tuition fees debts of students from 1998, the first step is to estimate the cost.

    What worries me most is that very few people around Corbyn appear to be able to do these sums. And certainly not Corbyn himself.

    If you don't get the budget right, then your plans are not likely to work in practice, even if you are PM.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    felix said:

    felix said:

    surbiton said:

    She is really a b1tch.
    And the level of mysogynism on the left continues apace. I suppose we ought to be relieved she's not Jewish as well.
    You must know that Katie Hopkins if full of hated and bile. Sure there are some nasty, nasty people on the left too but it doesn't lessen Hopkins' vileness.
    Never been a fan myself but I do kick back when it spills into gratuitous name-calling and mysogyny. Generally, with more than 8 O Levels you can be more classy - of course you omit to mention the grades....
    Haha I got 4As, 3 Bs and a C.

    But what is mysogynist about calling out Katie Hopkins for the nasty piece of work she is?!? Yes I know she happens to be female but I am just as happy to call out Hitler and Stalin as evil dictators.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited October 2017
    This contains the potential for an awful lot of fun.

    Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.

    The calls for the prime minister to reveal advice from the country’s top legal experts follow government statements declaring that Brexit is now unstoppable, and that MPs will have to choose between whatever deal is on offer next year – even if it is a bad one – or no deal at all.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/07/theresa-may-secret-advice-brexit-eu
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    nielh said:

    Evening all.

    Here is a scenario. Corbyn and co get elected. Introduces new asset taxes. Passes a law that requires you to disclose all your overseas assets and they are taxed at the same rate as they are here. If you fail to disclose your assets = Jail and hefty fines.

    The other thing he could do is remove double nationality rules and revoke your citizenship if you are found to be hoarding assets overseas.

    It seems to me that, post Brexit, this would all be quite possible as a sovereign government. Others will know more than me but we seem to have pretty flaky constitutional protections with regard to these kinds of rights.

    While I am nervous about the possibility of economic cataclysm should the Jezziah ever get near power, I'm doubtful about this scenario. It would require him to write laws. Do we know for certain he has the intellect to do so?
    It does make me laugh when PB tories assume that their visceral hatred of Jezza means he must be stupid. :lol:
    What makes you think he isn't thick as shit? His CV is hardly one of somebody with supreme intellect.

    He went to one of the best state schools in the country and got absolutely terrible qualifications.
    You're confusing academic achievement with intelligence. His emotional intelligence is streets ahead of, for example, just about everybody in the cabinet.

    I went to a good grammar school and managed the sum total of 8 'o' levels and I know I am not thick as shit :wink:
    Now there is an interesting philosophical statement!

    I've always wondered about this statement anyway. I mean, what sort of shit are we talking about? Bird shit isn't particularly thick, while elephant poo on the other hand...
    Birds don't filter out the liquid, so their output is actually piss and shit.

    Elephant-wise, there is a story TE Lawrence used to tell (at least I think he did, the internet doesn't seem to know about it). Lawrence was driving through rural Dorset with a friend who was a famous African big game hunter. They drove in silence until they encountered a huge pile of dung in the middle of the road, and the bgh said "Hm! Elephant!" Lawrence merely nodded and they drove on in silence. 10 miles later, they came to a travelling circus setting up camp for the night.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2017



    No I am not confusing it. He has never demonstrated any high level of intellectual ability. As soon as he gets pushed on any sort of detail, he starts to fall apart or come out with total bullshit e.g. no idea about the details of custom union vs a custom unions, false stats about poorer students going to university etc etc etc.

    Can he do empathy, ok, kinda, certainly better than the incredible low bar set by May, certainly, at least with those which who have similar politics to him.

    I do expect politicians to have some facility with figures. For example, I do expect them to know to within factor of a few how much their policies will cost.

    If you are proposing a National Care Service, I do expect you to be able to multiply the number of people in care homes by the typical cost of care per year and get an estimate of the annual cost.

    If you are proposing free childcare for 1.3 million youngsters, I do expect you know how much it would cost by multiplying typical childcare costs per hour by number of hours by number of children.

    If you are proposing free university tuition for 1.75 million students, together with the return of maintenance grants, I expect you to be able to figure how much it will cost. Similarly,
    if you propose sorting out the university tuition fees debts of students from 1998, the first step is to estimate the cost.

    What worries me most is that very few people around Corbyn appear to be able to do these sums. And certainly not Corbyn himself.

    If you don't get the budget right, then your plans are not likely to work in practice, even if you are PM.
    Much that the Tories ain't much good (certainly at politics), Team Red is an order of magnitude worse. Putting aside the odd exception like Starmer, the shadow cabinet is stuffed full of total numpties of limited intellect (which can't be said about the likes of Cooper-Balls).

    When you compare for instance Tony Blair cabinet it is clark and cheese..and yes there was Hoon and Prescott in it. But nobody thinks Darling, Milburn, Mandelson, Irvine, Reid, Mowlam, etc are / were morons.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2017
    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:



    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
    I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.

    The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with significant wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).

    Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and aim to pass it on in a trust or via property in the distant future are terrible.

    Their wealth needs to be taxed.
  • Pong said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:



    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
    I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.

    The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).

    Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and pass it on in a trust or via property are terrible.

    Their wealth needs to be taxed.
    It is already taxed.

    But you knew that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    Pong said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    stodge said:



    Okay - you're making a little more of this than I am but it's a point worth exploring.

    It has been implied (by a couple of individuals on here) that in the event of a Labour Government taking office they would re-locate their financial assets to another jurisdiction.

    I find the juxtaposition of individual economic security and national identity curious. Even if it's not a Government you support or voted for, it is still the Government of your country, democratically elected by your fellow countrymen and women.

    We saw in the 1970s individuals leaving Britain for tax reasons. If the money is earned in the UK and it's moved elsewhere simply to avoid paying tax - I understand it but I don't agree with it. It seems to reflect a narrow notion of identity - which is more important, living in your own country or living in a country in which you feel comfortable ?

    If remaining in your country puts your life at risk, then I completely recognise the need to escape but is anyone seriously suggesting the coming of a Corbyn Government in those terms?

    I entirely understand the idea of moving country - at least temporarily to avoid punitive taxation. As a basic point of principle it is wrong for the state to tax part of ones earnings at 98% as was the case in the late 60s.
    Ok, 98% is definitely a 'move' kind of amount. It sounds so insane I struggle to believe it really happened - what on earth was the thinking, and how much of an impact did it have?
    Norway once had a > 100% income tax bracket I believe.
    I'm much more in favour of taxing wealth/assets, than income.

    The economy is concentrating wealth at an incredible speed. We urgently need those with wealth to consume and spend, not save and invest (which is what they're doing right now).

    Highly paid footballers are great for the economy that you and me live in. They earn loads and piss most of it away. The people who accumulate wealth and pass it on in a trust or via property are terrible.

    Their wealth needs to be taxed.
    Agreed!
  • The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262

    The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms.

    A glimmer of light appears in the darkness.
  • There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.

    That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.

    "We must stay in the EU because it will prevent our elected Government carrying out the policies they were elected for"

    It shows the disdain Remoaners have for basic democracy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    There's a great irony that remaining in the EU/single market is a strong buttress against the more loony policies of Corbyn.

    That has always been the very worst argument for Remaining.
    What's the best argument for Remaining, in your view?
This discussion has been closed.