Boffo

Dr. Keith Crainshraw says:
May 17 2017 at 9:10 am
It’s great to see you coming back over and lauding the Labour Party after a month or so of constant working on getting the SNP on your side. Only with a big party such as Labour can we be hope to be able to get you into the Lords…

Hmmmm

DHL Consignment Notification Arrival:

Dear a@a.com

You have an uncleared DHL shipments posted to your address.

Please take a moment to track your package online .

Thanks for chosen us!

DHL Global Forwarding.Deutsche Post DHL Group
Copyright © 2017 DHL International GmbH.
All rights reserved.

Why do I think this is a phishing attempt?

Ah, that’s why.

There’s a joke in here somewhere

Wanted: a compelling vision for a left-of-centre party. Must invest in economy, modernise essential services, get the well-off to pay more tax. Free wifi on trains a bonus. Someone answered my personal ad!

And I, of course, am far too polite to make it about young Owen.

but summat about how someone’s going to get buggered if that reply to the ad is responded to.

The country maybe.

This is not entirely unexpected

The European court of justice has raised a ray of hope for British trade negotiators with a surprise ruling that will make it harder for national parliaments to block key components of any future post-Brexit deal between the EU and the UK.

In a long-awaited test case that had been expected to complicate the Brexit process, the court instead ruled that EU officials had exclusive powers to negotiate international trade deals without ratification by national and regional parliaments.

Ratification is still required in specific areas, such as inward investment and dispute resolution, but the definition of the EU “competences” is much broader than had been expected.

It’s pretty much what the EU itself has been insisting for decades now. Trade is a sole EU compotentcy.

That the let everyone vote on the Canadian deal is just because they decided to let everyone vote on it.

But as SnippaSpud keeps insisting, it doesn’t matter

Analysis: do Labour’s manifesto pledges add up?

We can just print money until they do add up, so it doesn’t matter, does it?

TBH I’d love to see him try to get that point across on TV. With A Neil perhaps.

And there’s a bit of this that Ritchie hasn’t admitted to himself as yet.

So, we can spend any amount we want just by creating money. But we must raise taxes in order to kill off the resultant inflation.

Right, sure, we know that politicians really will raise taxes to the correct amount, don’t we? For we’ve that historical proof that they always did even when they thought they faced a hard budget constraint, right?

But more than that, look at the end state. We end up with a high spend, high tax, society. How is this different from the earlier model, a high tax and high spend society?

Mmmm, yes, ermine suits

Labour has delivered a good manifesto for the UK

Sigh.

There isn’t one obvious big idea in the Labour manifesto of the type I would like. At the same time there is one massive underlying theme of bringing to an end the neoliberal era. And that is good enough. I have had my differences with Jeremy Corbyn, but this is a good manifesto for the UK.

Go on Jezza, Go on, go on, go on.

You know you want to.

I’m gonna steal your cash!

So renationalisation could be done in the same way. Issue bonds for fair value. Make them redeemable in not less than thirty years, and maybe longer. Make the interest rate the very low ones on offer now. In net terms these are likely to be negative throughout that thirty year period. And what is the net cost of renationalisation? Next to nothing. Or less.

I’ll let inflation do the expropriating.

The very slight problem with this, over and above the glee at theft here, is that those bonds will have to be rolled over. And as we’ve been told by the SnippaMeister himself government never does repay bonds because that would be to reduce the money supply. They will thus be rolled over and interest rates will rise…..the cost will be rather high then. Millennia of interest paid to feed a current political Spud.

Well done.

Praise Be! You can still send Hillary political money!

Hillary Clinton on Monday unveiled her new political action organization, Onward Together, which will fundraise for five prominent progressive groups.

What’s the slice that pays for Hills?

And what dreadful cultural appropriation here:

#Onwardtogether

Nigerian NavyVerified account
@NigerianNavy ‏
The official Twitter account of the Nigerian Navy. (Following/RT does not equal Nigerian Navy endorsement) Onward Together!!!

The footnotes are important

26 The Excessive Pay Levy is a payroll tax, charged against the
employer of any individual earning more than a defined limit
(from all sources).

So if JK Rowling becomes a local councillor then the LA will be charged the extra tax on her £12,000 a year because she sells a lot of books.

Well thought out, isn’t it?

Another fun footnote:

“Offshore Trust Levy”. Data from Land Registry and
Private Eye calculations.

There’s a research arm we can trust, eh?

34 VAT on private school fees

34 Fabian Review, January 2011

??

This is very pretty

In government, Labour would give
more people a stake – and a say
– in our economy by doubling the
size of the co-operative sector and
introducing a “right to own,” making
employees the buyer of first refusal
when the company they work for is
up for sale

And they’re going to get the necessary capital from where?

For buggery’s sake, this is a professor? Of economics?

Second, high pay of this level does not represent a reward for effort. It does instead represent the ability to capture a rent. In economic terms this is the equivalent of monopoly profit arising from a market imperfection. So, footballers benefit from the rent arising from there being only a very few TV channels.

Facepalm.

Have you noted how, as the number of TV channels has gone up, footballers’ pay has risen?

Yep, that’s right, Spud has it the wrong way around. There aren’t that many people capable of playing football at Premiership level. There are many TV stations who would like to be able to show advertising to the many people who like watching Premiership football.

The more TV stations there are competing for that potential profit stream then the more they will be willing to pay to the footballers (or the teams, but they have the same problem, the revenues will flow to the players) to secure the rights.

He is absolutely, 100%, the wrong way around here.

Third, there is a need to reprice this pay to beat inequality which is now widely considered to be the cause of massive social harm as well as economic stagnation. The social harm aspect is, I hope, obvious. The stagnation comes from those very well off spending on asset price inflation (or saving, in other words) rather than recirculating income into the economy as those in lower pay do.

Sheesh. Someone’s just sold the asset, they’ve now got the cash. Which can be spent or saved/invested and nothing else. And if they invest it in an asset them some other mug now has the cash and can make only the same one of two decision.

And this would, of course, justify higher personal tax rates on investment income which, even after recent dividend and rental income changes, do in most cases have tax rates lower than those on going out to work for a living, which is absurd.

And Snippa shows that not only can he get things wrong from first principles he’s entirely ignorant of basic theory on taxation too. Capital income, on efficiency grounds, *should* be taxed at lower rates than labour income.

What? No, don’t bother scrubbing her, leave my tent unsullied

When Eleanor Tomlinson made her first red carpet appearance at the Deauville Film Festival in 2006, she was 14 years old and looked every inch the gawky schoolgirl, with her hair its natural dirty blonde and her teeth in traintrack braces.
A decade on, at this weekend’s Baftas, she’s been transformed into a veritable goddess. Her hair is now flaming red — dyed for her role as Demelza in the BBC’s Poldark — while her striking red-carpet look is the work of stylist Nisha Grewal.

Whatever the perkiness of those norks not a natural redhead kills the deal I’m afraid. She’ll have to go find some other sugar daddy.

Up next, dementia no bar to remaining a pilot

NHS nurses with dementia should be allowed to carry on working, according to the profession’s top body.

The Royal College of Nursing voted overwhelmingly yesterday in favour of making dementia a special case when interpreting rules on whether a medical diagnosis signalled the end of a career. The move aims to keep experience, skills and knowledge in the NHS, nurses said,

Rather the point or dementia is that you can’t recall that experience, isn’t it?

But no matter, forgetful pilots up next. No, don’t worry, we know it won’t be a problem. RyanAir has been forgetting where airports are for decades now.

Hmm

Chanel has been denounced on social media for appropriating Indigenous Australian culture by producing a $2,000 boomerang derided as the ultimate in useless status symbols.

Yep, Abos invented, so far as we know at least, the boomerang.

Slightly brownish people invented the concept of zero, rather pinkish ones the deep iron plough, possibly yellowish ones the stirrup and so on.

Ad where would we all be without such cultural appropriation?

Ideas in The Guardian

They ask some writers for what they’d really like to see political parties promising:

Think of the weightless laziness that envelops you when you realise it’s a bank holiday and you have nowhere you especially need to be. Now imagine that feeling of bliss repeated every working week. It could be reality if we all worked no more than 30 hours a week. And crucially that we did so without a detrimental impact on pay.

So, just to illustrate, let’s assume that we all work 40 hours a week now. We move to 30. OK.

Labour input drops by 25%. Great. But how do we all gain the same real incomes? Output has just dropped by 25% hasn’t it?

OK, marginal productivity declines as the work week lengthens, we know that. So, output only falls by 10%, or 15%. We are all, in aggregate, 10 to 15% poorer. How can we all be having the same incomes then?

George Monbiot asks for more cycling lanes which is at least achievable.

Prime World problems

For when First World problems isn’t enough:

One thing is clear: when we lose title sequences, we are losing something of artistic value. The title sequence has a unique and colorful path through history, and it deserves consideration as an art form itself.

Netflix now gives you the choice of skipping the opening credits of a film.

This is an outrage.

Why Netflix’s ‘skip intro’ feature is bad news for classic films
Noah Gittell
The ability to avoid watching the opening credits of certain titles is a sign that the company lacks reverence for cinema history

Jeebus people, it’s the viewers doing the skipping, not the company.

Seems logical enough

“When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t buying smashed avocado for $19 and four coffees at $4 each,” he said. “We’re at a point now where the expectations of younger people are very, very high.”

He added: “We are coming into a new reality where … a lot of people won’t own a house in their lifetime. That is just the reality.” Asked if he believes young people will never own a home, he responded: “Absolutely, when you’re spending $40 a day on smashed avocados and coffees and not working. Of course.”

Homes cost money, hipster lifestyle costs money. Make your choice.

Finally, Corbyn is right about something

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has refused to say that he is a wealthy man – despite earning more than £137,000.
The 67-year-old was quizzed on a variety of topics including immigration, Trident, the future of the Labour party and his pay.
But when asked about his earnings, he refused to acknowledge that he is wealthy when speaking to Julie Etchingham on ITV’s Tonight programme which airs tonight.
He said: ‘I’m not wealthy because of where I put the money, but I’m not going into that.’

He has a high income, sure. Top 2% or so? Summat like that. But we’ve seen his tax return – albeit wrongly filled in. There’s pretty much no interest nor investment income. He’s not wealthy, he’s high income.