You can see why people assume London is full of pretentious wankers.

From the Evening Standard:

[Re-elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan] vowed to “work day and night” to deliver “safer streets” saying: “On crime – we’ll continue to be both tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. This includes putting even more police officers on the streets at the same time as investing record amounts in new opportunities for young Londoners.”

This is especially bitter - he's the one who took the police officers off the streets in the first place.

"The key thing is to make sure our city recovers. It’s the biggest challenge our city has faced since the Second World War, and that’s what Let’s Do London is about - getting our city back on its feet after the awful 15 months we have had, and try to bring our city together and our country together.

"We have got to avoid this culture war which is tearing our country apart. We have got to make sure we have the Brexit scars healing and we ought to try to bring people together. My mission in the second term is to bring our city together.

"Next Monday restaurants will reopen, many theatres will reopen. On June 21, fingers crossed, our city will return to a semblance of normality. It’s going to be an amazing summer."

... he insisted he had a "decent mandate" overall, having secured more than 1.2m votes. "I didn’t realise I secured the biggest vote ever received by a candidate, other than myself, of course, in 2016," he said. "But also I discovered I have got the biggest majority, other than myself in 2016. Quite a decent mandate, if I say so myself."

City Hall promised “the biggest domestic tourism campaign the capital has ever seen” to help London’s economy get back on its feet as Covid restrictions are eased. There will be a series of one-off events, outdoor film screenings and late-night openings under the London Lates initiative to ease social distancing.

None of that really means anything to a normal voter, does it?

As contrast, from Politics Home:

[Re-elected Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham] used his victory speech to accuse the Prime Minister of failing to deliver on his promises to areas like Greater Manchester... He pointed to a perceived "widespread cluelessness" in government as to what "levelling up", and offered to spell it out for Johnson.

"Here is where I can help you, Prime Minister. Let me define it," Burnham said. "It can't be achieved by scattering funds across a few favoured places.

"It can be achieved when you give millions of people in a city region like this one a modern, affordable public transport system, when it costs the same to catch a bus in Harpurhey as it does is Haringey. £1.55, not £4 or more that people pay here".

He continued: "Levelling up is achieved when you give all people the dignity of decent work and wages that don't have to be topped up by visits to the food bank, and when you have the kind of jobs here which mean our young people don't have to move south to get on in life, which I had to do 30 years ago."

I've no strong opinion on Andy Burnham one way or another, but at least he says real things that actually mean something and are within his remit as Mayor.

Fun Online Polls: Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Jeremy Corbyn

The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

If you had been the US President in August 1945, what would you have done?

Ended the war and allowed Japan to get away with it - 10%
Allowed the war to drag on for another few months or years - 1%
Dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima then given them a couple of weeks to surrender - 52%
Dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and another one on Nagasaki out of spite - 36%

So a clear winner here, and I was with the majority on this. A good turnout of 77 voters, thank you everybody who took part.

My view is, as the US President, you have to think about
a) what's best for the American people as a whole (and sod the Japanese) and
b) what will get you elected President in a three years' time. Harry Truman was of course not elected President the first time, he took over when FDR died.
-------------------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll.

"Who will/would you vote for as new leader of the Labour Party?"

Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar, multiple selections allowed if you're in two minds.

I'm in several minds about this (although luckily I am not registered vote so I'm not losing sleep over this).

On the one hand, he is likeable, has principles and I agree with some of his policies while the other three are just faceless mishmash self-promoting machine politicians. I don't agree with any of their policies for the simple reason they don't actually have any.

But Corbyn's policies miss the point and he will make life more difficult for the Young People's Party by offering superficially attractive solutions to our core voters which will not actually address the underlying issues.

Burnham on the Mansion Tax

From the Telegraph

Andy Burnham, the frontrunner for the Labour leadership, has described Ed Miliband’s flagship mansion tax policy as “spiteful” and disclosed that his mother telephoned him to warn it was a vote-loser.

Describing the policy as “spiteful” and anti-aspirational, he said he knew it would lose votes when his mother Eileen phoned and told him it represented a return to the 1970s.

“It felt spiteful and went against the grain," he said. “We need to get back to communicating simple policies that will make a real difference to people.

“Labour looks like an elitist Westminster think-tank talking in language that people don’t understand. We lost our mooring.”

Jesus H Christ on a Bike. It was Labour's best policy, you idiot. In terms of public support, I refer to YouGov:

The poll reveals that 65% of people in Britain support introducing a mansion tax, while 22% are opposed and 13% are undecided. A plurality (49%) of Tory voters support the plan, while 41% are opposed and 10% aren’t sure. Labour and Lib Dem voters are strongly in support of the mansion tax, at 79% and 74% respectively.

So, even rather a lot of Tory voters, probably the less well-off end that are marginal voters support it. And most free-market economists of the Milton Friedman school support the broader tax, land value tax because the alternative is taxes on the productive economy. That's why land value tax is aspirational. We want people to not be taxed on their work, because that's what makes the world better. Taxing land values, created by the state, doesn't destroy productive wealth.

How many people in this country honestly have an aspiration for a £2m home? I'd love to own one of the big places on Rightmove in the beautiful Kennet Valley. If I made my millions, that's what I'd do. And you know, there are literally 3 over £2m. There's a load of lovely places costing £1.5m that I doubt I'll ever own. But let's say that the 9 bed place near Pewsey was my aspiration, does anyone think that I'd feel crushed at knowing that I'd have to pay £3K/annum to own a £2.3m home? I'd have had to have earnt £4m before taxes just to do so. another £3K/annum is like losing some spare change down the sofa at that level.

Under his leadership, Mr Burnham said, renters would be offered help to buy their home.

With what? We're going to take even more money out of the productive economy to hand to BTL landlords so that productive people can own a house? How is that a good thing, you dickhead?

Doesn't follow.

From The Metro:

COPYING ideas from poorer countries such as India and Ghana is key to saving the NHS, a watchdog says.

Adopting 'industrial engineering' techniques used to carry out cataract surgery in Aravind, India, could save £1.1 billion a year, Monitor claims.

Another £800 million could be recouped if Britain copies Mexico, where two-thirds of patients sort out their problems in a phone call with a nurse...

All good stuff, health spending is a question of diminishing returns to scale, some things are worth every penny, other things aren't and somebody has to draw a line somewhere.

But shadow health minister Andy Burnham said: "This will send a shiver down many a spine.

"It confirms the suspicion many people have that David Cameron is softening up the NHS for privatisation."

How on earth did he work that out? How does he get from "the NHS saving a few bob" to "the NHS being privatised"?

I am really am sick and tired of this false dichotomy that Tories want to privatise everything and Labour want to nationalise everything, it's a bit more nuanced than that.

If you think about it, everything is ultimately privatised at the bottom level. Police officers are private individuals who receive payment from the government for maintaining law and order. Firms who supply the police with stationery, computers or cars are private businesses. But "the police" in the wider sense is quite certainly a national thing.

So it all depends on what level of the organisation is being "privatised".

If Cameron went mad and handed over the keys to the entire NHS to some large corporate and gave them £100 billion a year for doing whatever it is they feel like doing, such as leveraging up on the land and buildings, taking massive bonuses, providing a catastrophically bad service and then disappearing, that'd clearly be a bad move.

But we already have this at a low level with GPs, they get given random amounts of money for doing whatever it is they feel like doing. Are they still an integrated part of the NHS? I would say "yes". Are their salaries and housing subsidies justified or value for money? I would say "no".

What if the NHS realises that procedure XYZ costs them £10,000 but they can send patients to a hospital in Eastern Europe who can do it just as well for £5,000? That's still NHS, isn't it?

So it's all a question of degree.

Sugar per 100g serving of breakfast cereal

My little girl had to compile this list for her science homework, we could't find it online so we traipsed down to the supermarket and compiled it ourselves. I'll post it here to save next year's parents* the hassle:

Scott's Porage Oats - 1g
Weetabix - 4.4g
Cornflakes - 8g
Rice Krispies - 10g
Shreddies - 14.9g
Weetabix Chocolate - 15.9g
All Bran Flakes - 18g
Rice Krispies Multigrain Shapes - 18g
All Bran Golden Crunch - 21g
Cheerios - 21.5g
Fruit and Fibre - 24g
Chocolate Cheerios - 24.9g
Froot Loops - 25g
Honey Shreddies - 27g
Coco Pops Coco Rocks - 27g
Krave - 29g
Golden Nuggets - 30.3g
Curiously Cinnamon - 32.1g
Cookie Crisps - 34.5g
Sugar Puffs - 35g
Crunchy Nut - 35g
Frosties - 37g

Thank you everybody who posted additional ones in the comments.

* Top tips to avoid accusations of plagiarism: re-arrange the list in alphabetical order, random order or from highest to lowest; miss off a couple; add one or two further items from cereals you've got at home or Google around a bit; try alternative spellings (like "Porridge", a common mistake); or simply change some of the numbers a bit and so on.

Clearly, you'll also have to check whether any of those breakfast cereals have been banned in the meantime.

Oh gosh, what a surprise...

... says Bob E, who emailed in this one-two-three-gotcha exchange between the Labour opposition, the civil servants and the Conservative government:

So, late Friday or early Saturday first this:

Ban high-sugar cereals to tackle child obesity, says Andy Burnham

Labour targets foods that can be over one-third sugar as OECD report says English children are among fattest in Europe.

And did the Department of Health have anything to say about this "demand"?

But the Department of Health said it has helped reduce the levels of fat, sugar and salt in foods. A spokesman said: "By working with industry through the Responsibility Deal we have helped to reduce fat, sugar and salt in foods. There is now less salt in the food we buy, companies are cutting and capping calories and artificial trans fats are being widely taken out of food.

"We are working to reduce the amount of salt in food further, cut saturated fat consumption and we are exploring how to promote healthier food choices more widely. We also want more businesses making pledges so we get bigger results."

... and yet, a scant few hours later ...

Childhood obesity: Jeremy Hunt threatens food industry with legislation

Supermarkets and manufacturers told to get 'their house in order' or face laws to curb high levels of sugar and fat in food

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said he will consider introducing new laws to limit the amount of sugar, salt and fat in processed foods to curb childhood obesity but said he wanted to give supermarkets and manufacturers a chance to get their "house in order" before resorting to legislation.

The comments come after his Labour counterpart, Andy Burnham, announced a consultation on capping sugar and fat levels in food targeted at children. Hunt criticised the former health secretary for failing to tackle the problem while he was in power, and said Labour had left the nation with the highest childhood obesity rate in Europe.

Getting your priorities right

From The Metro:

... in a written reply to accusations by former health secretary Andy Burnham that he was ‘rowing back’ from previous statements, [Andrew Lansley] said: ‘I have announced plans to phase out the NHS Direct number. I am aware that some people are claiming, incorrectly, that NHS Direct is to be shut down.’

Mr Burnham said: ‘This is a welcome climbdown and great news for the staff who work for NHS Direct and all of us who rely on it.’

PS, I must cheerfully confess I have no idea what 'NHS Direct' is and have certainly never relied on it.

Killer arguments against LVT, not (64)

I had feared that I was running out of raw material for this series, but luckily Andy Burnham came to my rescue.

He vaguely floated a slimmed down version of my original proposal of years ago, i.e. to merge Council Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax into a flat rate Land Value Tax*, which I consider to be broadly interchangeable with a flat rate Property Value Tax i.e. pretty much what they have instead of Domestic Rates in Northern Ireland.

PVT in isolation is less 'progressive' than LVT (which you may see as A Good Thing or A Bad Thing), but this effect can be easily cancelled out by having a Citizen's Income scheme, which is inherently 'progressive' (i.e. the CI would more than refund people for the element of the PVT they pay that relates to the bricks and mortar and not the location).

There were two articles in The Guardian on this (Land value tax – not old or New but true Labour and With land value tax, Labour is getting it right**) and the comments section are a rich seam of Home-Owner-Ist economic illiteracy.

Shadowfirebird parades his ignorance thusly:

While I think the idea has some merit, it's silly to suggest that a land value tax would be proportionate (1). Just because I own a large amount of land, doesn't mean I have a lot of money (2). I could have inherited it (3) ... or spent it all on buying the land.(4)

Presumably farms would have to be exempt, for example, or else you would bankrupt every farm in the country (5). No, the only proportionate tax is a tax on income. (6)

1) 'Proportionate' to what, exactly? How is a flat percentage tax on land values not 'proportionate' to land values?

2) Of course it does not necessarily follow that you have lots of current income if you own lots of land, that isn't the point. LVT is a tax on consumption of land. If you drive a lot of miles in your car, you pay a lot more in petrol duty than others; if you drink or smoke a lot, you pay a lot more booze and fag duty than people who don't etc. Further, if you rent privately or are paying a mortgage, half of what you pay is LVT - it's just that the tax is collected privately by the landlord or the bank. From the point of view of the payer, it doesn't make the slightest difference who collects the tax, with the bonus that if 'the state' collects it, it will (hopefully) be spent on things that benefit the payer.

3) If you inherit a load of valuable land that you don't want to occupy yourself, then sell it and swap it for assets that are not liable to LVT (which is anything apart from land). What's the problem?

4) That's a highly unlikely scenario. Housing is a normal good. A lot of people who live in £1 million mansions will be higher earners (let's say £200,000 a year or more gross). If we went the whole hog and rolled all taxes (including income tax, VAT etc) into Land Value Tax, the fiscally neutral rate would be about 8% per annum, so instead of these people paying over £80,000 in income tax, VAT, Council Tax etc, they'd pay £80,000 in Land Value Tax.

What's the big difference - apart from the fact that LVT has much lower dead weight costs than income tax, VAT (and is easier to collect, so on balance, 'honest' taxpayers will benefit at the expense of tax evaders and avoiders). There may well be a hundred thousand pensioners who live in £1 million houses for which they will have paid 2'6 decades ago and who are sitting on massive untaxed gains - but if the biggest political stumbling block is the Poor Widow Bogey, then as far as I am concerned, let's just give them exemptions or discounts (or the option not to pay Land Value Tax but to leave the house liable to Inheritance Tax or something).

5) Why would farms go bankrupt? If you were to extend LVT to farmland (about which I am indifferent - let's get rid of CAP payments first. The tax would be in the region of £30 or £40 per acre and would raise a paltry £1 or £2 billion per annum), then a farming couple with an average sized farm of 150 acres or less, i.e. most farms - or as much as a couple can manage, would receive as much in Citizen's Income as they paid in LVT - but there'd be no income tax on the annual profits, so most farmers would end up better off (especially tenant farmers). And if somebody owns a much larger farm and employs people, then their CI would to a large extent subsidise the wages that he has to pay.

6) Clearly, if your definition of 'proportionate' is 'proportionate to income', then income tax is probably the most 'proportionate'. But let's not forget that housing is a normal good, in other words, the amount of housing that people consume is a fairly constant fraction of household incomes at all income levels. So if we replaced all taxes with a flat tax on housing, for most people it wouldn't make that much difference to their total tax bills (putting pensioners to one side for the moment).

* For clarity, I'd distance myself from at least two thirds of the other proposals in his mini-manifesto Aspirational Socialism.

** Thanks to SW and Physiocrat for the h/t.