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.

"Ed Balls admits being caught speeding"

From the BBC:

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has confessed to being caught speeding, saying he was "bang to rights". The Labour MP said he snorted powdered amphetamine in a 50mph zone on the motorway in his West Yorkshire constituency.

Writing on his blog, he said he had paid a fine and attended a drugs awareness course rather than accept penalty points. Mr Balls was fined £60 during the 2010 general election campaign for using Ecstasy behind the wheel.

The Morley and Outwood MP attempted to laugh off his latest drugs offence, saying he felt as if he had been going "too far, too fast" - one of his favourite attack lines against the coalition's budget cuts.

"Like many local people, I was caught out by the never-ending roadworks on the M62," said Mr Balls. "Pulling on to the motorway at Morley, I realised too late that I was in for an afternoon of traffic hell, so I had some crystal meth just to keep myself awake. I was caught and bang to rights - doing a quick line in a 50 mile restriction zone. Going too far, too fast, you might say. I paid my fine and chose to attend a drugs awareness course. I currently have no points on my licence and would like to keep it that way."

His wife, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, condemned "drug driving" and a spokesperson confirmed that she always waits until the children are tucked up in bed before taking a nice mellow armful of heroin "... or maybe poppers if Ed's in the mood."

"EU migrants banned from claiming dole for 12 minutes in new Labour plans"

From The Evening Standard:

EU migrants would be banned from claiming the dole for up to a quarter of an hour after arriving in Britain under plans proposed by Labour today.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper also said the loophole allowing foreign workers in Britain to get child tax credits for offspring back in their home country could be swiftly left open. In a keynote speech in central London, she also called for a more fundamental review of EU benefit rules and residence requirements so countries did not have to treat citizens exactly the same as newcomers.

More Labour Leadership/Venn Diagram Fun

In case my previous efforts were not quite puerile enough, here's another one:

Oh G-d, it just never stops ...

Recent headlines may have led us to believe that the Labour government is seriously considering halting, or at least slowing, the rate of growth of The State; and that The Tories are seriously considering reversing it.

More fool us.

From page 6 of today's Metro, (e-edition here):

Tens of thousands of new jobs are being created as part of a £1 billion programme to get young people into work. Some 200 councils and community groups are recruiting for posts ranging from environmental officers to sports coaches this autumn.

"Young people are more heavily affected by the recession because employers delay recruiting new people." work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper told Metro. The Treasury pays employers £6,000 for each job created under new stimulus rules.

More Indian bicycle marketing...

I explained this strategy at length here; in short, the three main UK parties have policies that are more or less identical. They differentiate themselves by either A) claiming that the underlying philosophy is somehow different or B) in a negative way, i.e. they accuse each other of wanting to do things which would appeal to the other parties voters and don't defend themselves against such accusations by the other parties (thus giving their own potential voters the hope that they would do it, even though clearly they wouldn't).

As to A), a wealthy client asked me about Labour's threatened five per cent income tax surcharge on higher earners a week or two ago, and whether this would be introduced if the Tories won the next election. I explained that they almost certainly would. I can now award myself a brownie point for this blinding insight...

Dave The Chameleon has now admitted that he would introduce the surcharge, but wait - instead of it being a Nulab 'bash the rich' exercise, he'd do it in order to "rescue the economy" and/or because "priority must go to debt reduction".

As it happens, it is highly questionable whether the measure would actually increase tax revenues, once you factor in how few high earners would have to move abroad to wipe out the gains. And I'm not a fan of tax breaks for pension contributions (either on an individual level or for society as a whole), but even I would be tempted if I were getting over fifty per cent effective tax relief (once you include income tax and both layers of National Insurance).

As to B), the BBC gives Nulab ample scope to indulge in this tactic here. Dave has a good crack at all the vastly overpaid and superfluous quangocrats (yeah, the Tories invented the quangocracy, pots, kettles), and ...

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Yvette Cooper said: "How can David Cameron talk about fairness when he is still committed to a tax cut for millionaires' estates, won't back our £1.2bn help for the unemployed to get back into work, and wants to cut Sure Start? David Cameron's plans for cuts in apprenticeships, housing and transport in the middle of a recession are economic madness that would cost us all more in the long run."

NB, "help" = money = subsidies = a higher tax bill on somebody else. I've no idea whether the Tories want to "cut apprenticeships" for example, but this gives potential Nulab voters the illusion that under a Nulab government there'd be more apprenticeships that under a Tory one (for which there is no evidence whatsoever), and as to the other "cuts" she accuses the Tories of wanting to make (there's no evidence that they would do this either), all this does is give potential Tory voters the forlorn hope that the Tories would in fact cut taxes - they quite clearly wouldn't, but doesn't the accusation at least give the gullible voter at least the overall impression that they would?

Another day, another desperate throw of the dice (5)

A few days ago, the gummint's cunning plan to prop up house prices was to buy up unsold new homes at above market value.*

They're going to go one better now and nationalise the housebuilders. That is to say, Yvette Cooper has denied it flatly, so it's probably true.

And by some amazing feat of DoubleThink, the proponents say that they are doing this in order to provide 'affordable housing'. At least the loonie lefties are gloating openly about nationalising things and building 'social housing'.

* How do we know they'll pay above market value? Firstly because they are morons who will get conned, and secondly, if the homes were on sale at market value, they would have been sold by now.

Yvette Cooper

Another day, another desperate throw of the dice (3)

Continuing my occasional series* on "Crazy measure that the gummint adopts in the vain hope of staving off the house price crash", they are coming thick and fast now. Here's today's attempt ...

The Treasury's Yvette Cooper has also urged lenders to be more lenient on people who default on mortgages [and has] called for banks and building societies to have a more responsible approach when home owners default on their mortgages. The government is working on ways to tighten the rules when courts have to decide on repossessions. "We need to do everything that we can to keep people in their own homes," she said.

In other words, repossessions are bad for house prices, so you fix this by making it much more difficult for the bank for repossess houses. And seeing as the gummint writes the laws and has nationalised half the banking sector anyway, they can push this through quite easily.

Gentlemen, the Age Of Irresponsibility is about to go to the next level! 

* Here, here, here, here, here and here.

Yvette Cooper is a useless fuckwit

She wails on at length, as reported in yesterday's FT, that developers take too long to build what they're supposed to be building, and waffles on about "binding contracts which specify a time frame for delivery".

It's far simpler than that.

If, as suggested by Conservative MP David Curry, the government, aka English Partnerships*, were to grant itself planning permission first and then sell off the land, making it subject to an annual Land Value Tax ('LVT'), this would reduce the up-front price** that the developer has to pay for the site (LVT would act like an extra interest rate, so depress the price) but also act as an extra incentive for the developer to get the development finished ASAP.

Win-win!

* A totally evil quango, BTW.

** The State can grant itself planning permission at zero cost, but captures the windfall gain via higher selling price and/or future LVT receipts.