Indeed, he'd never have survived in politics if he wasn't - he's very good at the game. But I don't think he'd make a good PM (or win a majority, without sufficient rehabilitation).

I don't see him as someone who leads, but more someone who provides the basis for leadership. A bit like Brown and Blair. In the treasury Brown excelled (whether you like him or not) but outside it, as Leader, he was very poor. He didn't inspire confidence on a broad basis - which a leader has to.

Similarly, Thatcher and Whitelaw. On his own, he'd been s**t as PM, but the two of them massively benefitted each other as PM and Deputy.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

If you're talking about the UK then you've taken leave of your senses. That "ticket" is a one-way pass to increased inequality, poor international relations, low levels of productivity, a worsening economy, pillaging of public services and enrichment of asset owners at the expense of everyone else.

It would be a shambolic disaster.

Thankfully it won't happen.

How do you increase inequality, or decrease it or that matter. Would you divide assets equally between everybody?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

The answer, in either way, is through regulation. Generating wealth is pointless, if no one benefits. Conversely, increasing equality is meaningless if in doing so you make everyone poor.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Decreasing inequality is a relatively simple task and one that would improve productivity and social cohesion immensely. It's however unpopular with the Tories, their backers and the press barons (hence why the Tories don't like it).

Simple strategies to decrease it range from small increases in top rates of tax, reductions in lower rates of tax, increases in minimum wages, increasing public investment in education (very important), reducing levels of regressive taxes in favour of progressive taxes, increasing inheritance tax significantly, making un-earned income (such as capital gains) taxable at the same rates as income, increasing public investment in infrastructure to improve physical mobility of people, increase levels and quality of affordable housing, provide state supported schemes to invest in start-ups (like a state owned VC business) that would then retain small shares (say 5%) in these companies once divested or listed and provide a "social dividend", increase levels of benefits in the same way that pensions are increase (triple lock) but also provide incentives to get back to work via improve access to training, investment in healthcare (particularly mental health), remove the draconian restrictions on union activity and collective action (very important), levies on pay of execs which is in excess of a multiple of their lowest paid worker (industry specific, but say levy on salaries over 20x that of lowest paid), abolish employers' NI and work the amount to be raised back into income tax (merge NI altogether into income tax).

List goes on.

How delightful Jacob has voted in Parliament so far on some issues:

Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life

Consistently voted for reducing capital gains tax
Voted a mixture of for and against measures to reduce tax avoidance

So not a massive surprise he has support from certain types on here.

Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jul 2017 7.09pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]