For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.
Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.
Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.
Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.
I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.
The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
In part the rich have those rewards because of globalisation. How to tax the rich during a time of globalisation is a tough question to which I have seen no well-thought out answers. See, for instance, all the talk about taxing the Amazons and Googles and Facebooks of this world. Brexit may, ironically, be an attempt to retreat from that globalisation but I've yet to see how it will help Britain get a fair share of tax from the top 2%.
We get plenty of tax from the top 2%. IMHO, the problem is that there are no penalties for failure at that level.
Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
The one common thread between Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark is that they structure their welfare and worker education systems similarly:
- they are all big on apprenticeships - they all offer generous unemployment, but require the unemployed to retrain, and benefits can be withdrawn very quickly for non-compliance
In other words, they have education, training and benefits systems that encourage employment for all.
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
So that is still more than £20k then? Maybe my daughters will elope.
The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.
I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
Just spotted an interesting comment in your post:"....spend so much on the State."
I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.
This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.
They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.
Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.
The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
We have a system which encourages lying to the electorate.
And in the old days, they'd just blame the EU, and move on.
I think the biggest Brexit dividend is that it will force our politicians to take responsibility for their actions.
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.
This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.
They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
If there was a natural soft left majority Ed Miliband would have won in 2015 and Corbyn done a confidence and supply deal with the LDs in 2017.
The truth is there is neither a left nor right majority in the UK, elections are won in the centre and that is why with a few exceptions like Attlee and Thatcher it is relatively centrist leaders like Macmillan, Blair and Cameron who perform best at the ballot box
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money. ......... They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.
This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)
The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.
Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.
But you will be live streaming the event on Facebook and YouTube, right?
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.
This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.
They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.
Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.
The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Hasn't home ownership been falling almost everywhere to varying degrees ?
Apart perhaps from a few odd places like maybe Bolsover.
And how do we test whether people are happy with the status quo ? Are areas which swung to the Conservatives last week regarded as such ?
60% of the country are still home owners but in London a majority now rent, hence it is in London where the Tories were not even able to win a majority in 2015
Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.
No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.
If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.
I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.
Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
So that is still more than £20k then? Maybe my daughters will elope.
£16k is what we've budgeted for 80 guests.
I'm not buying a new suit since I already have a suitable one from a previous event and she's ordered a dress from China (my sister did it and it was a tenth of the cost of going to a shop for the same dress). That's actually a huge savings, much bigger than I realised.
Another Richard said "In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions?"
Well, maybe even more intelligent. Anyway, for some reason I'm reminded of Kingsley Amis's comment about reaching 70 that the loss of libido was like being unchained from an idiot. In this context I guess I'm thinking about materialism.
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
So that is still more than £20k then? Maybe my daughters will elope.
£16k is what we've budgeted for 80 guests.
I'm not buying a new suit since I already have a suitable one from a previous event and she's ordered a dress from China (my sister did it and it was a tenth of the cost of going to a shop for the same dress). That's actually a huge savings, much bigger than I realised.
I still have my wedding suit.
It was bought especially for the occasion.
It is - and I'm not joking here - a Donald Trump suit.
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is exit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.
The basic problem for the Tories is that so few people benefit from capitalism these days. That is primarily due to the cost of housing. Even people that slug their guts out to get a good degree, do all the necessary internships, get a great milk round offer, work hard in London for ten years and marry someone similar end up not being able to get more than a three bed house unless they have an hour commute each way. And to do that you need to be working 15 hours a week more than our parents.
The issue is that median family incomes have gone backwards since 2000.
This may be because of low skilled immigration from Eastern Europe, or there may be other reasons. (It's worth noting that basically all developed countries have seen stagnant or falling median incomes, and that's happened irrespective of immigration policy, or whether in the Eurozone, or whatever.)
The reason Donald Trump won in America, that the Front National surged in France, and that there is so much unhappiness with the 'elites', is that they have not delivered on their side of the bargain: they have not delivered steadily rising incomes for all.
Now, the question is why is that? (Note: I have the answer,)
Ten years ago I asked this question here:
In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions ?
Of developing countries only probably China has a graduate workforce coming out to at least match those of western nations in terms of skills and as the Chinese middle class grows they also want more vacation time to spend the increased GDP per capita they will benefit from and are likely to want better working conditions too
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.
When will the next 1987-scale result be for the Tories? And does it matter? Although they may be destined to continue squeaking victories (or near-victories) they still seem to get away with it, as it were, and retain their tradition as The Party of Government (TM).
It's likely that GB tends more towards a Labour government these days, but seemingly it all depends on the leadership. I don't think an election-winning Labour leader would have to be a blairite, but they would have to be at least slightly to the left of Corbyn, and they'd definitely need charisma.
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.
But you will be live streaming the event on Facebook and YouTube, right?
When will the next 1987-scale result be for the Tories? And does it matter? Although they may be destined to continue squeaking victories (or near-victories) they still seem to get away with it, as it were, and retain their tradition as The Party of Government (TM).
It's likely that GB tends more towards a Labour government these days, but seemingly it all depends on the leadership. I don't think an election-winning Labour leader would have to be a blairite, but they would have to be at least slightly to the left of Corbyn, and they'd definitely need charisma.
I think you mean 'At least slightly to the right of Corbyn.'
Plus of course the only Labour leader to get a majority over 100 since 1945 was Blair
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.
I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.
Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
Nearly all other countries have more devolved systems of government than the UK.
New Hampshire, USA has one million people. It's self-governing except for defence and foreign policy, although it may get federal tax revenue money which is what provides a degree of redistribution from rich to poor states.
Hampshire in England has one million people. Er, it provides means-tested social care, empties the bins and runs those public libraries that it hasn't shut. There is no possibility of it choosing to fund services differently, e.g. possibly by using a local income tax, property tax and/or sales tax.
Denmark has about the same population as south-west England or the west Midlands. Switzerland has the same population as London.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
Just spotted an interesting comment in your post:"....spend so much on the State."
I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.
It is not lost to the economy but it is a burden on the productive economy which has to be paid for (I simplify, obviously there are parts of the public sector which are "productive"). Where Brown went wrong was his belief that he could have higher growth indefinitely driven by increasing public spending. At some point the productive economy cannot come up with the money and you either have to borrow it or put it off the books by, for example, PFI. It is not sustainable.
Keynes advocated the State increasing public spending and employment to bring an economy out of recession. No one in their right mind contemplates it as the basis of never ending growth.
Everyone will be pleased to know that my partner and I have laid down the law and we're now having a small, tasteful wedding and it will cost less than a quarter of what the original budget was. Out closest friends and family, a church and a party in the evening.
My mum didn't want to give up without a fight, but as @rcs1000 said he who pay the bill calls the tune. When I said, "if you want us to have a huge Indian wedding then give us the £80k" she was suddenly a lot more agreeable to our way.
Did you reveal your big stock market gain ?
No, but that money is already earmarked for putting a bigger deposit for buying our house.
Not the most fun thing to do with it I know, but responsibilities come first unfortunately.
Anyway, these charts reflect something that I was thinking about this morning, before the BBQ and more than a bottle of wine. Why do the Tories find it so hard to get a proper majority? They have not had one since Maggie. On a good day, like 2015, the Tories can just about scrape a majority but it has become almost impossible for them to do much better than this. May got 42% of the vote and still fell short.
It seems to me, even without the wine, that this country has been changed so that there is a natural soft left majority such as Blair was able to put together. The Tories can, just, overcome this by having an exceptional leader like Cameron or an exceptionally repellent opponent like Corbyn but the legacy of Blair (and Brown) is a massive and massively entitled middle class that either works for the public sector or for the rather more amorphous third sector using largely public money.
This new class is not only numerous but also completely dominates our media and policy making structures whether through charities, think tanks, institutes, Universities and the like. It is currently furious that it did not get its way on Brexit but this is an almost unique occurrence and they have by no means given up yet.
They have the effect that even Tory governments sign up to ever increasing public spending and the State being a solution to almost any problem. They drive a consensus which is politically rather than economically driven. And it may not be sustainable. Maggie built a natural right wing majority in this country. Blair reversed it. No one since has managed to change the weather again.
The loss of aspiration and middle class regression particularly in the urban areas.
Falling home ownership and increasing inequality is killing people's belief that capitalism works for them.
The way greedy bankers and shyster businessmen can walk away with millions after leaving a trail of unpaid taxes, redundant workers and empty pension pots destroys faith in the system.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Probably, yes.
Nah, some of the places with the highest home ownership rates are East and West Midlands, Wales, East Anglia, not places that seem happy with the status quo.
Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.
No Tory leader since then has done the latter, even though Cameron came to power in circumstances not that dissimilar to those in 1979. If you want to change the political weather you need to have some idea of what you want to change it to and have the ability to argue your case. One reason the Tories have not done this is because Cameron felt that he had to accept existing assumptions rather than challenge them. And too many of them have been arguing about Europe. Even if you accept that this is the most important issue for ordinary voters (itself a colourable statement), they simply have not been able to argue for how they want to change things nor how they intend getting there. Thatcher could do - and did do - both. Today's Tories: not so much.
If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.
I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.
Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
Singapore has excellent public services, on some scores better than those in Scandinavia, with significantly lower taxes and spending than we do in the UK as they demand high standards
Singapore has excellent public services, on some scores better than those in Scandinavia, with significantly lower taxes and spending than we do in the UK
I wonder what their ratio of workers to retirees is?
Edit to add: better than ours, but still worsening significantly.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
Just spotted an interesting comment in your post:"....spend so much on the State."
I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.
It is not lost to the economy but it is a burden on the productive economy which has to be paid for (I simplify, obviously there are parts of the public sector which are "productive"). Where Brown went wrong was his belief that he could have higher growth indefinitely driven by increasing public spending. At some point the productive economy cannot come up with the money and you either have to borrow it or put it off the books by, for example, PFI. It is not sustainable.
Keynes advocated the State increasing public spending and employment to bring an economy out of recession. No one in their right mind contemplates it as the basis of never ending growth.
I agree, but I do think some on the right like to portray all public spending as money down the drain. Personally, I feel we need a mixed economy and that in the past 30 years we have focused too much on the (misguided) belief that the private sector always does things better, and that competition is always good.
Maggie had 2 advantages: (1) she came to power when things had got so bad that even those who would normally be members of what you call the "soft left" class felt the need for some drastic change; and (2) she argued the case for what she was trying to do. She argued for why the state should be smaller and taxes lower and people should take more responsibility and why socialism brought disaster and why Communism (in foreign affairs) was wrong. She did not simply assert. She argued her case. And she did not simply accept previously accepted verities and assumptions.
If you want the change you are seeking you need to have people behind the scenes doing the intellectual heft - think tanks and the like. Are there such things anymore? Is anyone in our political class (and I'm thinking more widely than just MPs) doing any thinking at all?
The situation in 2010 was far more catastrophic than the local difficulties of 1979. 8 years on and we have not started to recover, mainly because our public/private sector balance is way off what is sustainable. We are still running a significant structural deficit and yet the argument against "austerity" is all we ever hear. That is what really concerns me. The cosy consensus of these entitled led us to 2008. It doesn't work.
I do agree that the arguments about Europe have been out of all proportion to its importance or relevance. I was saying as much earlier today.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
On a related note, when people say do we want 'Scandinavian style public services' I wonder if they are only possible with a Scandinavian sized country.
Perhaps different economic systems work optimally only for countries of a certain size or type.
By what rationale?
I would suspect that a 'one size fits all' approach to public services doesn't work in countries of different size or type.
Likewise in business, government or a myriad of other sectors.
Even if you have a 'good' job in the private sector in Manchester, Birmingham, Scotland or wherever and a high standard of living, you are still highly vulnerable and have to live with a lot of anxiety. You can still effectively get fired at whim. In many jobs there is very little sense of a meaningful contract between yourself and your employer whereby one is loyal to the other, it is more a case of co-operation towards mutual advancement, underpinned by suspicion. I guess that is why a lot of people don't stay in post for long these days.
It isn't difficult to realise that the whole system is broken.
Places where it is hard to fire people have very high levels of youth unemployment, because firms are wary of adding cost they cannot lose.
The flexibility of the UK labour market is one of the reasons why unemployment is so low.
The point is more to do with the entity that is employing you, than the flexibility or otherwise of the labour market, but the two may well be linked. In some cases, ie Ben's case, there is a bank, which values career progression and loyalty, and looks after its employees. But in many other jobs, that solid entity doesn't exist anymore, and so people end up changing jobs regularly.
In my own industry, many people are not 'employed' at all, they are effectively working as self employed consultants, which is a major change from 10 - 15 years ago. They are essentially doing the same work that they did before, but the 'employer' has no obligation to them at all, they could get sued for any errors they make, they have no paid holiday, no sickness provision, no pension. On the face of it they are well paid, but this masks a very problematic reality beneath.
Is the public/private sectore balance in say Sweden or Denmark also unsustainable David?
Its a good question. I think the answer is yes in the medium term because I don't see how they can be competitive with countries that don't spend so much on the State. But they certainly show that the structural deficit can be addressed by either cutting spending or by increasing taxes. We still have politicians who pretend we can have their services but our tax rates. They are liars.
Just spotted an interesting comment in your post:"....spend so much on the State."
I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.
It is not lost to the economy but it is a burden on the productive economy which has to be paid for (I simplify, obviously there are parts of the public sector which are "productive"). Where Brown went wrong was his belief that he could have higher growth indefinitely driven by increasing public spending. At some point the productive economy cannot come up with the money and you either have to borrow it or put it off the books by, for example, PFI. It is not sustainable.
Keynes advocated the State increasing public spending and employment to bring an economy out of recession. No one in their right mind contemplates it as the basis of never ending growth.
I agree, but I do think some on the right like to portray all public spending as money down the drain. Personally, I feel we need a mixed economy and that in the past 30 years we have focused too much on the (misguided) belief that the private sector always does things better, and that competition is always good.
It is absurd to say that when I see a patient at the private hospital that I am productive part of the national economy, but that when the same happens a mile away in the NHS, that I am a burden on the productive economy. The same goes for a police officer vs a security guard, and does a defence barrister grow the economy, while the prosecuted and judge drain it?
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
There was a study that showed people's happiness at work increased if they knew their boss earned a huge salary because it gave them something tangible to aspire to.
I did a Google search, and I'm not sure it's true.
Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.
Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
Singapore has excellent public services, on some scores better than those in Scandinavia, with significantly lower taxes and spending than we do in the UK
I wonder what their ratio of workers to retirees is?
Edit to add: better than ours, but still worsening significantly.
For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.
Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.
Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.
Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.
I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.
The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
It is precisely because at least as many voters prefer to 'Cling to Nurse' than go for a 'Time to Change' to socialism that the Tories are currently still polling 40%+ and Labour could not achieve a NEV voteshare lead on Thursday.
New Labour, Cameron's Tories, Trudeau's Liberals all examples of sensible centrist parties that thrived under FPTP
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
I did a Google search, and I'm not sure it's true.
Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.
Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".
Clearly not given they won Wandsworth again on Thursday
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
That's not true at all.
The big accountancy firms all have very large practices outside London. (Indeed, I just hired someone from E&Y Newcastle.)
Plus there are a great many smaller and local firms.
I very much doubt more than 30% of graduate accountants (i.e. 22-26 year olds) are based in London.
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
I did a Google search, and I'm not sure it's true.
Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.
Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".
Clearly not given they won Wandsworth again on Thursday
I agree with you.
I was just pointing out that the tweet was bullshit.
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
For all the jibes about "Blair", he wasn't that different in his own way from Wilson. Both were able to convince millions of voters (many of them former Conservatives) that the Labour Party they led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.
Both Blair and Wilson resonated with their time - Wilson had the technocratic "white heat of technology", a message wrapped in modernity for what seemed an optimistic new age.
Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.
Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.
Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.
I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.
The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
You've just managed to sum up why the Tories have lost London.
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."
It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.
But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
Thanks.
Where shall I send the invoice?
So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
You've just managed to sum up why the Tories have lost London.
Which is odd, seeing as the Hard Left don't believe in private property.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
You've just managed to sum up why the Tories have lost London.
What makes this more complex, though, is that those Londoners largely voted for the EU status quo, while those who owned their own houses in East Anglia, largely voted against,
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
Thanks.
Where shall I send the invoice?
So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.
Why is nuclear power the answer? It's an incredibly expensive form of energy.
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."
It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.
But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.
There are lorry parks at Dover already.
More seriously, forget what the loons (archer101au and williamglenn) are saying, there is a real desire on both the part of the EU and the UK to produce a workable solution. Barnier and Davis, while they will never be close friends, work well enough together, and at the senior civil servant level, things are tough but cordial.
There will be far less disruption on Brexit day that people fear, although "regulatory divergence" will probably end up being a 2025 story rather than a 2019 one.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
Thanks.
Where shall I send the invoice?
So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.
Why is nuclear power the answer? It's an incredibly expensive form of energy.
If you do it yourself, then the money doesn't go abroad. It circulates in the domestic economy.
Blair had "Cool Britannia", an optimistic message for the post-Cold War era and both faced Conservative Governments, exhausted and out of touch after long periods in Government.
Corbyn's fate is perhaps to be the same as Kinnock's. For all the latter's achievements in beginning the rehabilitation of Labour he was never seen as a credible Prime Minister in the way John Smith might have been and Blair certainly was.
Aspects of politics can be seen as cyclical but all politics isn't cyclical - if it was, it would be much easier to predict the future.
I tend to trust the common sense of the British people. They want reasonably competent government that at least tries to balance what we need with what we can afford. They choose leaders on that basis.
The problem is that the balance is being broken as we more retired people. The current centre-left model relies on increasing taxation which eventually stops working. I don't know what the answer is but it won't be pretty.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
You've just managed to sum up why the Tories have lost London.
Which is odd, seeing as the Hard Left don't believe in private property.
Well quite. How anyone can think that a Corbyn government will make London houses more affordable for anyone except the cash buyer waiting for the bottom of the market amazes me.
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
It is precisely because at least as many voters prefer to 'Cling to Nurse' than go for a 'Time to Change' to socialism that the Tories are currently still polling 40%+ and Labour could not achieve a NEV voteshare lead on Thursday.
New Labour, Cameron's Tories, Trudeau's Liberals all examples of sensible centrist parties that thrived under FPTP
There is a tide in the affairs of men and it is currently flowing towards "Time for Change" regardless of current upsets in the parties or current polling.
I take your point on centrist parties. I should have said minor centrist parties competing with major centrist parties. The minor centrists parties are not differentiated enough to compete on "Cling to Nurse" nor radical enough to compete on "Time for Change".
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."
It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.
But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.
There are lorry parks at Dover already.
More seriously, forget what the loons (archer101au and williamglenn) are saying, there is a real desire on both the part of the EU and the UK to produce a workable solution. Barnier and Davis, while they will never be close friends, work well enough together, and at the senior civil servant level, things are tough but cordial.
There will be far less disruption on Brexit day that people fear, although "regulatory divergence" will probably end up being a 2025 story rather than a 2019 one.
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
Thanks.
Where shall I send the invoice?
So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.
Why is nuclear power the answer? It's an incredibly expensive form of energy.
If you do it yourself, then the money doesn't go abroad. It circulates in the domestic economy.
That's a big 'if' and one which this goevernment has failed misreably on.
In 2002 there were about 200 homicides in London. I don't remember this causing much comment at the time. Why? Probably because the zeitgeist at the time was Blairite optimism. The homicide rate in London this year is considerably lower than it was then but it's causing a lot more soul-searching because most people are more downbeat about life in general than they were in 2002, for whatever reasons.
Normally I chart £25,000 to come to your conference and tell you, but in summary...
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
Thanks.
Where shall I send the invoice?
So the answer is pro-natalism, shifting taxes from labour to land, and nuclear energy. Not sure what you do about globalisation but you could limit immigration so at least the non-remote working jobs aren't undercut.
Why is nuclear power the answer? It's an incredibly expensive form of energy.
If you do it yourself, then the money doesn't go abroad. It circulates in the domestic economy.
I'm sorry, but you are encroaching on one of my specialist subjects.
Nuclear power is not a good solution, because it is inflexible (you can't vary output with demand), it has poor reliability (unscheduled downtime for maintenance hammers electrical grids), and it has very high operating costs.
A country that produces power from a mix of different sources, but predominantly modern CCGTs, with some baseload and renewables, will generate power much more cheaply. Which benefits all sorts of export industries.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
I know that is obvious but I don't see what it is adding to or arguing against my point.
My point is that the reason people in Leicester are more unhappy with the status quo despite some of the cheapest housing is because they are skint. Folks in London moan about the cost of their housing, but are not skint.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
This is something we can test: in parts of the country where home ownership is not falling, is there greater happiness with the status quo?
Using the right metric will be difficult. The statistics tend to be dwelling-centric rather than person-centric. A boomerang kid could be living in an owner-occupied house, but will be on the wrong side of the equation.
Sure, there can always be more data. But the fact is that the current extreme housing issues (in terms of price and availability, leading to smaller numbers of owner occupiers) are principally in London, and to a lesser extent, the South East).
In London, a 30 year old associate at a top law firm struggles to buy an ex-local authority apartment in a third tier location. But a 23 year old graduate accountant can afford a nice apartment in a reasonable part of the Manchester/Salford area.
If housing affordability was the biggest issue, we would expect that places where housing was more affordable would be happier with 'the status quo', than those in places like London.
The problem with your logic is that almost all the graduate accountant jobs are in London.
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
Let's hope we see a move towards taxing wealth, rather than income soon then.
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
Callaghan: "There are times, perhaps once every thirty years, when there is a sea-change in politics. It then does not matter what you say or what you do. There is a shift in what the public wants and what it approves of."
It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.
But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.
There are lorry parks at Dover already.
More seriously, forget what the loons (archer101au and williamglenn) are saying, there is a real desire on both the part of the EU and the UK to produce a workable solution. Barnier and Davis, while they will never be close friends, work well enough together, and at the senior civil servant level, things are tough but cordial.
There will be far less disruption on Brexit day that people fear, although "regulatory divergence" will probably end up being a 2025 story rather than a 2019 one.
Yes, let’s hope that the adults in the room actually going through this stuff are not the ones either reading or writing what appears in the British media every weekend!
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
Let's hope we see a move towards taxing wealth, rather than income soon then.
Taxing income is easy, because there’s a record of it. Taxing wealth is much more difficult.
I think that some sort of property tax is coming down the line, but it would have to be based on last transacted value if we’re not to kick granny out of where she’s lived her whole life, and it will need to be accompanied by a similar cut in income taxes at the 40% rate so as to be revenue neutral for British citizens and raise money only from foreign buyers.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
A 60% tax rate would trigger an exodus. It would be great news for Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Australia and Dubai.
The old Tory argument against higher taxes was that it discouraged people from being sufficiently rewarded to work hard. That argument has fallen apart when the top 2% have astronomically higher rewards than they did during Thatcherism. We could substantially jack up their taxes while keeping Thatcher-level rewards, and pay for vast new housing development, infrastructure and social care.
The first party to combine toughness on immigration and toughness on the rich, while supporting broader pro-growth policies will win a landslide
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
A 60% tax rate would trigger an exodus. It would be great news for Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Australia and Dubai.
And Ireland, whose population is still well below its pre-famine peak.
I understand your point but the maths won't work. The top 2% have the capacity to take their wealth away or lock it up legally. The people who will get stung will be those who can't run away or employ expensive accountants - the middle classes. Again
This is oft repeated but no evidence is ever provided beyond anecdotes. Because it's not true. You jack up taxes on the very wealthy and only a handful move abroad. Most of them have lives, friends and family in London and giving those things up isn't worth an additional 10% income.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
+1
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
A 60% tax rate would trigger an exodus. It would be great news for Canada, the USA, Switzerland, Australia and Dubai.
Which is why John McDonnell was talking about capital controls a few months ago. He is that far off the scale.
We are seriously now all going to have to explain to our kids what the 1970s were like and why we don’t want to go back there.
Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?
To state the bleeding obvious: House prices in London are high because that is where the money is (albeit asymetrically distributed- only the very poor and very rich can live there). Houses are cheap in Leicester and Nottingham because these cities have the lowest household disposable incomes in England, while London is highest. Fig4 here gives some idea:
As a minor aside, Nottingham stats are skewed by the limited size of the city boundaries e.g. West Bridgford and Beeston not included.
Yes, but it doesn't make that much difference. When I was short of income two years ago I took a flat in Bulwell (North Nottingham) - nice place, £500/month. I could have got one in Beeston for not much more - about £700. The whole area is pretty cheap, apart from a few luxury spots. That may change when HS2 makes it commutable to London.
Where do you get this 60% tax stuff, by the way, Sandpit?
Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?
Time for Brexiteers to get rid of Theresa The Appeaser. What else have they got to lose?
The political battle is always between "Cling to Nurse" versus "Time to Change". These are huge emotional forces that grip the population.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change". Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
It is precisely because at least as many voters prefer to 'Cling to Nurse' than go for a 'Time to Change' to socialism that the Tories are currently still polling 40%+ and Labour could not achieve a NEV voteshare lead on Thursday.
New Labour, Cameron's Tories, Trudeau's Liberals all examples of sensible centrist parties that thrived under FPTP
There is a tide in the affairs of men and it is currently flowing towards "Time for Change" regardless of current upsets in the parties or current polling.
I take your point on centrist parties. I should have said minor centrist parties competing with major centrist parties. The minor centrists parties are not differentiated enough to compete on "Cling to Nurse" nor radical enough to compete on "Time for Change".
There isn't, otherwise Corbyn would have had at lead of 10%+ in the local elections as Blair and Cameron did in the local elections before they came to power.
There may be a 'time for protest' by voting for Brexit or Corbyn but that is a different matter
Well if Corbyn gets in we’ll soon find out. I’d bet good money that raising the 45% income tax rate to 60% as he proposes, will generate little if anything in extra revenue. It’s much more likely to lead to a shortfall of billions.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
The top rate in Japan is 60% once you include local taxes. I don't think the effect is quite that drastic, although you could argue that it's a factor (probably not the main one) in multinationals moving their Asian HQs to Hong Kong over the last 20 years.
A bigger problem in Britain would be that you'd increase the disjunction with corporation tax and capital gains tax so rich people would rejigger things to get paid in ways that weren't formally income, but presumably Corbyn would raise those to Japanese levels as well...
Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?
Time for Brexiteers to get rid of Theresa The Appeaser. What else have they got to lose?
I agree, but I have now come to terms with the fact that they will not move against her and put their ministerial careers at risk. If they were going to roll her and take control of Brexit they should have done this in December - now it is too late to do anything other than withdraw from the talks and go for Hard Brexit in March and none of them have the guts to do so.
They seem to have this fantasy that if May delivers some sort of Brexit they can take over then and make it 'better'. This is utter, utter crap. Whatever deal we do with the EU will never get 'improved' - the only direction it will then move is towards more re-integration.
Leavers need to realise that the Remainers will never give up in their desire to sell us out to foreign powers. The only way to stop it is to have such a clear break now that there is no basis for re-integrating later. If we remain in the CU and subject to SM regulations as May plans, it is perfectly obvious that this will just be the jumping off point for Remainers to start the re-integration process. They will never accept the referendum result.
Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?
Time for Brexiteers to get rid of Theresa The Appeaser. What else have they got to lose?
I agree, but I have now come to terms with the fact that they will not move against her and put their ministerial careers at risk. If they were going to roll her and take control of Brexit they should have done this in December - now it is too late to do anything other than withdraw from the talks and go for Hard Brexit in March and none of them have the guts to do so.
They seem to have this fantasy that if May delivers some sort of Brexit they can take over then and make it 'better'. This is utter, utter crap. Whatever deal we do with the EU will never get 'improved' - the only direction it will then move is towards more re-integration.
Leavers need to realise that the Remainers will never give up in their desire to sell us out to foreign powers. The only way to stop it is to have such a clear break now that there is no basis for re-integrating later. If we remain in the CU and subject to SM regulations as May plans, it is perfectly obvious that this will just be the jumping off point for Remainers to start the re-integration process. They will never accept the referendum result.
Yes, we get it, May has decided to stitch up everyone who voted Leave by staying in the Customs Union and then lying and pretending that she hasn't. Isn't is a wonder that nobody trusts anyone in Parliament any more?
Time for Brexiteers to get rid of Theresa The Appeaser. What else have they got to lose?
I agree, but I have now come to terms with the fact that they will not move against her and put their ministerial careers at risk. If they were going to roll her and take control of Brexit they should have done this in December - now it is too late to do anything other than withdraw from the talks and go for Hard Brexit in March and none of them have the guts to do so.
They seem to have this fantasy that if May delivers some sort of Brexit they can take over then and make it 'better'. This is utter, utter crap. Whatever deal we do with the EU will never get 'improved' - the only direction it will then move is towards more re-integration.
Leavers need to realise that the Remainers will never give up in their desire to sell us out to foreign powers. The only way to stop it is to have such a clear break now that there is no basis for re-integrating later. If we remain in the CU and subject to SM regulations as May plans, it is perfectly obvious that this will just be the jumping off point for Remainers to start the re-integration process. They will never accept the referendum result.
Civil war next?
You're being unduly beastly to Theresa. The referendum result only stipulated that we trigger Article 50, which was promptly done. Our subsequent relationship with the EU is another matter entirely and purely in the hands of our elected representatives. If you don't like what they decide, feel free to form you own political party and get elected to revoke their laws. Otherwise, let the professionals do what they see fit.
Revealing that Brussels fears Corbyn state-subsidised enterprises could be 'more competitive' than private ones....bring back world beaters like British Leyland eh?
Comments
- they are all big on apprenticeships
- they all offer generous unemployment, but require the unemployed to retrain, and benefits can be withdrawn very quickly for non-compliance
In other words, they have education, training and benefits systems that encourage employment for all.
I think it's important to realise that the public spending is by an large not 'spent on the state'. For example, where does all the money spent on the NHS go? Well of course some of it provides health care and some will be seen to be wasted in admin or inefficiencies. But actually nearly all of it goes in wages and gets pumped back into the economy, generating more demand. It is wrong to think of public spending as money in any way lost to the economy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/06/lord-adonis-apologises-tweeting-racist-cartoon-sajid-javid-saying/
The truth is there is neither a left nor right majority in the UK, elections are won in the centre and that is why with a few exceptions like Attlee and Thatcher it is relatively centrist leaders like Macmillan, Blair and Cameron who perform best at the ballot box
I'm not buying a new suit since I already have a suitable one from a previous event and she's ordered a dress from China (my sister did it and it was a tenth of the cost of going to a shop for the same dress). That's actually a huge savings, much bigger than I realised.
"In an increasingly globalised world economy how do we compete against countries whose people are as intelligent and educated as us but who are willing to work harder, for lower pay and under fewer restrictions?"
Well, maybe even more intelligent.
Anyway, for some reason I'm reminded of Kingsley Amis's comment about reaching 70 that the loss of libido was like being unchained from an idiot.
In this context I guess I'm thinking about materialism.
It was bought especially for the occasion.
It is - and I'm not joking here - a Donald Trump suit.
I've not worn it recently.
It's likely that GB tends more towards a Labour government these days, but seemingly it all depends on the leadership. I don't think an election-winning Labour leader would have to be a blairite, but they would have to be at least slightly to the left of Corbyn, and they'd definitely need charisma.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/06/iran-nuclear-deal-donald-trump-boris-johnson
That's reassuring.
Plus of course the only Labour leader to get a majority over 100 since 1945 was Blair
There's not one single cause, but many. The factors that have affected pretty much every developed country are:
- demographics - because more and more of your paycheck is now supporting a retired person, with expensive healthcare
- globalisation - because there are people out there who'll do your job for less money, and there's no way to force people in other countries to chose your output over that of the man from Mumbai
- tax and benefits systems - because they act to discourage work
- commodity prices - because they have sucked hundreds of billions out of the pockets of the poor in developed countries, and given it to the rich in the Gulf and Russia
New Hampshire, USA has one million people. It's self-governing except for defence and foreign policy, although it may get federal tax revenue money which is what provides a degree of redistribution from rich to poor states.
Hampshire in England has one million people. Er, it provides means-tested social care, empties the bins and runs those public libraries that it hasn't shut. There is no possibility of it choosing to fund services differently, e.g. possibly by using a local income tax, property tax and/or sales tax.
Denmark has about the same population as south-west England or the west Midlands. Switzerland has the same population as London.
Keynes advocated the State increasing public spending and employment to bring an economy out of recession. No one in their right mind contemplates it as the basis of never ending growth.
Not the most fun thing to do with it I know, but responsibilities come first unfortunately.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7706#fullreport
Not Kate McKinnon or Cecily Strong playing Stormy Daniels, actually Stormy Daniels.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K1K8s-tQGqY
Edit to add: better than ours, but still worsening significantly.
https://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/statistics/visualising_data/old-age-support-ratio2016.pdf
Likewise in business, government or a myriad of other sectors.
In my own industry, many people are not 'employed' at all, they are effectively working as self employed consultants, which is a major change from 10 - 15 years ago. They are essentially doing the same work that they did before, but the 'employer' has no obligation to them at all, they could get sued for any errors they make, they have no paid holiday, no sickness provision, no pension. On the face of it they are well paid, but this masks a very problematic reality beneath.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/993085852711571461
https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/993238895121915906
Also, if there is more than one place like Nuneaton, then there is also more than one place like Wandsworth. And there are places that are like neither.
Is the new policy of the Conservative party to be for One Nation - excluding Wandsworth, Richmond, Twickenham, Hampstead, Camden, and a bunch of other places considered too "metropolitan".
Everyone knows how I feel about 'woo'.
Attlee, Wilson, Thatcher and Blair each came to power with "Time to Change".
Brexit, Trump and Corbyn are more recent examples of the appeal of "Time to Change".
Cameron was successful with "Cling to Nurse" but May and the Brexiteers have completely blown it and the tide is now flowing strongly with "Time to Change" so prepare for Corbyn.
I think it also explains why sensible centre parties don't thrive in a FPTP world. They are not radical enough to appeal to "Time to Change" and not differentiated enough to compete with "Cling to Nurse".
"Why don't you f*** off and join the LibDems?"
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/993223651012038656
New Labour, Cameron's Tories, Trudeau's Liberals all examples of sensible centrist parties that thrived under FPTP
The big accountancy firms all have very large practices outside London. (Indeed, I just hired someone from E&Y Newcastle.)
Plus there are a great many smaller and local firms.
I very much doubt more than 30% of graduate accountants (i.e. 22-26 year olds) are based in London.
I was just pointing out that the tweet was bullshit.
Also, you can put the taxes on their land, which isn't very moveable.
It is possible we are approaching such a moment and the last GE hinted at that. Certainly if Brexit is the f*** up I think it will be (e.g. lorry parks at Dover etc etc) then we may well be.
But I can't say it really feels that way at the moment.
More seriously, forget what the loons (archer101au and williamglenn) are saying, there is a real desire on both the part of the EU and the UK to produce a workable solution. Barnier and Davis, while they will never be close friends, work well enough together, and at the senior civil servant level, things are tough but cordial.
There will be far less disruption on Brexit day that people fear, although "regulatory divergence" will probably end up being a 2025 story rather than a 2019 one.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/regionalaccounts/grossdisposablehouseholdincome/bulletins/regionalgrossdisposablehouseholdincomegdhi/2015
Suspect the idea that the top 2% will always be able to avoid additional taxes is put about by said top 2% to avoid such taxes being imposed. If they can avoid additional taxes why are bothering to pay any tax at all?
Top 1% pay 27% of income tax: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/616441/Table_2.4.pdf#page=2)
I take your point on centrist parties. I should have said minor centrist parties competing with major centrist parties. The minor centrists parties are not differentiated enough to compete on "Cling to Nurse" nor radical enough to compete on "Time for Change".
Nuclear power is not a good solution, because it is inflexible (you can't vary output with demand), it has poor reliability (unscheduled downtime for maintenance hammers electrical grids), and it has very high operating costs.
A country that produces power from a mix of different sources, but predominantly modern CCGTs, with some baseload and renewables, will generate power much more cheaply. Which benefits all sorts of export industries.
Those earning £150-250k in salaried jobs will get stung, as will the footballers. Multinational companies will relocate their head offices and senior staff to Switzerland, Singapore or the USA. The entrepreneurs will all head to Monaco, Dubai or the Carribean though, having their share dividends paid though various offshore companies. The Philip Greens and Richard Bransons (The PM’s “Citizens of Nowhere”) are offshore already, such punitive tax rates only encourage others further down the scale to behave in the same way.
I think that some sort of property tax is coming down the line, but it would have to be based on last transacted value if we’re not to kick granny out of where she’s lived her whole life, and it will need to be accompanied by a similar cut in income taxes at the 40% rate so as to be revenue neutral for British citizens and raise money only from foreign buyers.
Switzerland, Australia and Dubai.
We are seriously now all going to have to explain to our kids what the 1970s were like and why we don’t want to go back there.
Where do you get this 60% tax stuff, by the way, Sandpit?
There may be a 'time for protest' by voting for Brexit or Corbyn but that is a different matter
A bigger problem in Britain would be that you'd increase the disjunction with corporation tax and capital gains tax so rich people would rejigger things to get paid in ways that weren't formally income, but presumably Corbyn would raise those to Japanese levels as well...
They seem to have this fantasy that if May delivers some sort of Brexit they can take over then and make it 'better'. This is utter, utter crap. Whatever deal we do with the EU will never get 'improved' - the only direction it will then move is towards more re-integration.
Leavers need to realise that the Remainers will never give up in their desire to sell us out to foreign powers. The only way to stop it is to have such a clear break now that there is no basis for re-integrating later. If we remain in the CU and subject to SM regulations as May plans, it is perfectly obvious that this will just be the jumping off point for Remainers to start the re-integration process. They will never accept the referendum result.
https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/993238895121915906
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/993218506983464960