ants

I think a lot of white collar jobs will also be replaced with robots or AI via machine learning programs.

It obviously depends on exactly what you're on/doing, but often that is a limitation of what they're allowed to cover. They can't cover anything to do with GPs, out of hospital procedures (even when its the same as an in-hospital procedure), and a heap of other things. Personally, assuming Labour get in I'd quite welcome a productivity commission review. There are a lot of ways I think the system at all levels could be improved. And I work in the PHI industry (well, for some of my clients anyway)!

The private health system may fall apart, and there are legitimate questions on whether or not it achieves its intended purpose. But the idea that most of the costs aren't legitimate medical expenses is plain wrong. The major people getting use out of private health insurance are old people in hospital and people starting families (i.e. pregnancy costs). Those are most definitely real costs. Although one of my major bugbears is the way the system exploits the youth. If you're under 40 and not going through a pregnancy, you're generally getting a very low return on your risk mitigation.

A second round preference is only relevant if your preferred choice isn't one of the top two. In your example, someone can vote Remain (1), May's deal (2), and the second preference for May's deal is only relevant if Remain isn't in the last two leading options.

Actually, that CGT discount on assets actually does have a semi-reasonable basis. It replaced the system of inflating assets before calculating the true capital gain, which was taxed. A fair system that most didn’t understand. So Howard simplified it, while giving the people investing in really high return assets a huge bonus. Of course, that tended to be the really wealthy. If we were getting rid of it, we’d need to bring back the inflation adjustment.

Well, that and this is probably the best result for the country. Only some idiots in labour think trying to hold a general election before the 29th of March is plausible. Rightly or wrongly, May needs to stay "in charge". More generally, it appears to me there are two main voting blocks who might change. There are the Tories who voted for May's deal who have to realign with one of the other options, and there is the Labour leadership + followers. For me the logical outcome (so it won't happen) is a second vote with managed no-deal versus remain. Those who voted May's deal can say to their constituents "I voted the deal, that's off the table so these are the remaining options", so they have some protection. May can argue the same, and she was originally Remain anyway. Even the hard brexiters would find it a little hard to argue as their preferred option is on the referendum. The issue with all that is it needs Labour's leadership to support it. And nobody knows WTF Corbyn et al will actually go for. You would think with his main push of a general election and Labour renegotiation now off the table with the no-confidence vote, he would have to take a position. But we know he doesn't like this. Ironically, the referendum with Remain vs. Negotiated No-Deal would mean he could support something that allows him to still not take a position, so maybe its a realistic possibility. The reality is, if this was a logical world, then the "Deal" option should be off the table (due to May's vote being lost), and the Labour election + renegotiation should be off the table (due to the no-confidence vote results). Which should only leave Remain, No-Deal, or maybe one of the existing systems (such as Norway). The third one hasn't really had any major support at any stage. So it should be Remain vs. No-Deal. But somehow I expect it will become "how much more time can we delay things" option.

Actually, one-third of Labour voters voted for Leave. I'm not sure how you can say that the vast majority of labour was for Remain. That was one of the major elements that pushed May to go for an election, she thought that Brexit would split the Labour party. Instead, ironically, the election hardly touched on Brexit and concentrated on other issues, and Labour did well. Same link as for HeartOfIce: how-britain-voted

40-60 is a pretty wide range. You've conflated a group where 50% more voted one way (60-40), with a group where 50% less voted that way (40-60). For over 50's the margin was 60% Remain (64% for people over 65). Under 50 it was less than 45% (46% for 25-49 year olds). For people younger/older than 50, the Leave voting rates of <46% versus >60% margin is miles apart. To say they were split quite evenly is just not true. With over 50's, at least 50% more voted to Leave. With under 50's, at least 20% more voted to stay. That's a big difference. how-britain-voted

Didn't they pass a bit of legislation last week meaning there can't be a no deal brexit (without further legislation)?

So Mueller's investigative scope was limited to the election and the Russians, so presumably he wasn't able to talk to Cohen about any other illegal stuff Trump did in the past. But presumably the house would be able to do so. Are they able to do any type of deal for immunity? If he's really turned on Trump as recent statements of his says, then if he had immunity he might disclose an awful lot more than Mueller likely ever asked about (because his hands were tied).

I get what you're saying, but there is no easy option except preferential voting, which your electorate doesn't understand one whit (hence why you voted it down in the referendum). Out of the two options that people would understand, this or a 3 way question both have their issues. But I do think its the fairest approach (excluding preferential voting). But I think out of (a) 1 vote with 3 options versus (b) 2 votes with 2 options, then (b) is fairer. The first part of (b) is the same question as the previous referendum, with a clear statement that if people vote the same way one of two options must be chosen for the system. It is saying everyone has a vote on if the UK is in or out, and everyone has a vote on the system if you're out. No diluting of saying those who want to vote remain can't get a say on the system if you leave. Additionally, the two options that I'm suggesting if the UK leave's are the Brexiter's two preferred options. So if Leave wins the main vote, they get their choice. No Norway/Canada options. So as long as they win Vote 1, they will get something they want. * You're comparison is not really apt. A better comparison would be if vote 1 was "left or right", and then vote 2 was parties within each sphere. * Of course, the fact that many don't want either No Brexit or May's deal is just because they're still in la la land and think that mythical unicorn brexit is still possible. On a separate note, I don't think options should appear if they're not fleshed out. By now, there is lots of information available on the current system, May's deal and a no-deal brexit. Adding in other options that might require further negotiation would just muddy the waters. Let's assume May has negotiated roughly the best deal possible, and keep that as the clear middle ground option.

Its easy, just have a referendum with two questions. In the first one is Leave or Remain. The second question is "if we leave do we" May's deal, no deal. Keeps it quite simple, everyone who votes leave knows that its one of those two options, but everyone gets their say on what is the structure if Leave does win.

Because the rules around Brexit impact them to, plus the secondary impacts if they have properties/investments in the UK, plus they're UK citizens?

Interesting. Thankyou for posting. It certainly supports your view that a good majority of leave voters are happy to take a hit to the economy to leave. Frankly, if that is the case I'm not sure there is an argument that will get them to switch votes, although it does still leave 40% who appear to of the belief (somehow) that Brexit won't hurt the economy (since presumably if they did they wouldn't have voted Leave). I think what is telling though, is that when it's about losing their job (i.e. damage to them personally) support amongst leave voters for Brexit drops below 50%. So when its just "the economy" that suffers, 60% still would vote Leave, but when its actually them, its 39%. I think this may indicate that actually, lots of people don't realise how they individually will be affected, and don't think they will. In any second referendum (if one occurs) this has to be a focus of Remain. Of course, this is also why the Torries have fought so vehemently against detailed projections and analysis of the impact of Brexit being done. If it caused (say) a 5% cut in NHS funding and pensions, that would likely sink it.

Ok, so the one-off guy starting impeachment is just floss. But the budget one is actually a party push, isn't it? Or have I been told wrong?