The twitter argument between Hound and Young shows Hound in a very bad light. Young is right to say that had a Ukip politician said what Hound did there would be calls for Farage to disown them, and Hound is showing an appalling lack of judgement to infer that someone whose child died, of all people, would like to see other children suffer the same fate
Maybe Young included 'BBC' in the headline as a dig to associate them with the disgusting comments, but don't let that overshadow what an appalling thing has been said.
I hope Hound makes a public apology and steps down from the euro election
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
I am enjoying Josias's idea that Rufus Hound is a person of substance.
How quickly the left repudiate one of their own.
I have never considered Rufus Hound a person of substance. I had never heard of him before today. Now I do know who he is, I am still struggling to see him as a person of substance. I guess you and I will have to differ on that.
The twitter argument between Hound and Young shows Hound in a very bad light. Young is right to say that had a Ukip politician said what Hound did there would be calls for Farage to disown them, and Hound is showing an appalling lack of judgement to infer that someone whose child died, of all people, would like to see other children suffer the same fate
Maybe Young included 'BBC' in the headline as a dig to associate them with the disgusting comments, but don't let that overshadow what an appalling thing has been said.
I hope Hound makes a public apology and steps down from the euro election
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
Actually, they have won a parliamentary seat in the past.
They are the party founded by Dr Richard Taylor who was an MP between 2001 and 2010, he was the one who defeated one of Blair's health ministers.
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
The National Health Action Party was co-founded by Dr Richard Taylor, who had such a zero chance at winning an elected office as an independent on health issues that he was an MP for nine years until 2010, on just such a platform.
"Comedian Rufus Hound defended his friend Jimmy Carr by pointing out that the tax avoidance scheme he uses, branded as "very dodgy and morally wrong" by the Prime Minister, is perfectly legal.
The twitter argument between Hound and Young shows Hound in a very bad light. Young is right to say that had a Ukip politician said what Hound did there would be calls for Farage to disown them, and Hound is showing an appalling lack of judgement to infer that someone whose child died, of all people, would like to see other children suffer the same fate
Maybe Young included 'BBC' in the headline as a dig to associate them with the disgusting comments, but don't let that overshadow what an appalling thing has been said.
I hope Hound makes a public apology and steps down from the euro election
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
Actually, they have won a parliamentary seat in the past.
They are the party founded by Dr Richard Taylor who was an MP between 2001 and 2010, he was the one who defeated one of Blair's health ministers.
Fair enough. But I think my central point stands. UKIP should be judged against (and should hold itself to the same standards as) the big national parties, not pressure groups.
I am enjoying Josias's idea that Rufus Hound is a person of substance.
How quickly the left repudiate one of their own.
I have never considered Rufus Hound a person of substance. I had never heard of him before today. Now I do know who he is, I am still struggling to see him as a person of substance. I guess you and I will have to differ on that.
You called him a 'complete non-entity'. I fail to see how someone who gets quite so much airtime could possibly be described as such. Now you've changed it to 'a person of substance'
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
The National Health Action Party was co-founded by Dr Richard Taylor, who had such a zero chance at winning an elected office as an independent on health issues that he was an MP for nine years until 2010, on just such a platform.
I am enjoying Josias's idea that Rufus Hound is a person of substance.
How quickly the left repudiate one of their own.
I have never considered Rufus Hound a person of substance. I had never heard of him before today. Now I do know who he is, I am still struggling to see him as a person of substance. I guess you and I will have to differ on that.
You called him a 'complete non-entity'. I fail to see how someone who gets quite so much airtime could possibly be described as such. Now you've changed it to 'a person of substance'
Lol.
He is a complete non-entity in my view. You think otherwise. It seems that we just disagree about Mr Hound's worth and importance. Such is life.
I note that Rennard Gate has had no effect - as I predicted. And despite the usual wishful thinking from many on here. Each party has now had a 'scandal' that has made no difference - Ashcroft, Falkirk, Rennard. All are scandals only in the sense the entertain political obsessives while the general public say, erm, what?
The figures show the Lib Dem average down 0.6% over the last week. Doesn't sound a lot but when you are already below 10% it is significant. They have lost slightly more than 6% of their remaining support. In a week.
5th behind UKIP in the by - election last week with 425 votes has to be very embarrassing for them to say the least. Wipe out seems to be on the cards in Scotland.
Mr. Isam, cheers for posting that link. Russell Kane comes across as a very sensible chap.
What do you think of the coalition? I hate everything David Cameron’s doing with a passion but it’s quite refreshing to see someone actually doing something. It’s like someone punched me in the face after I’ve been sat in a room for 20 years.
Today's Populus Lab 40 Con 33 LD 11 UKIP 8 Con up 1 UKIP down 1
Get your voices ready — come on let’s hear you shout Its Crackerjack (Crackerjack!) Crackerjack (Crackerjack!) Join in with us on telly, that’s what it’s all about Oh such a lovely word is Crackerjack! Lumberjack? (No!) Steeplejack? (No!) Oh, Swingback? (No!) Crackerjack? (Yeah!)
It's a little early to be on the hard stuff.
The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem and are powerless over it.
I am enjoying Josias's idea that Rufus Hound is a person of substance.
How quickly the left repudiate one of their own.
For such a normally intelligent poster that is a disappointingly dim comment. Presumably you'd be surprised to hear that Godfrey Bloom or Nigel Farage is one of your own?
Nobody had heard of this pillock Hound before this morning, it is thanks only to "one of your own" Toby Young giving Hound's nasty comments the oxygen of publicity that people are now aware of him.
I am confused about this Rufus Hound business. I thought he was just about to open in a musical in the West End. So how will he find time to campaign for the Euro elections, let alone sit in the Euro Parliament if elected? Incidentally, I saw him at Chichester in "Neville's Island" and he was very good in it. I also had an interested chat beforehand with someone who knew him in his schooldays. (He attended Frensham Heights: fees currently £16,000 pa.)
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
The National Health Action Party was co-founded by Dr Richard Taylor, who had such a zero chance at winning an elected office as an independent on health issues that he was an MP for nine years until 2010, on just such a platform.
So the party was founded when Taylor ceased to be an MP. So TSE was wrong: they have never won a parliamentary seat.
But you are wrong: you said "less than zero chance" (which is, of course, impossible). What I said, and I think TSE meant, is that the NHAP is standing on a similar platform as Taylor did in Kidderminster. If he did it, then it's perfectly possible for the NHAP to target another seat where closures are widely protested locally.
They'd need the right candidates: Taylor was a doctor, very knowledgeable, and IMHO was a good member of parliament (and there are some things I really didn't agree with him on).
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
The twitter argument between Hound and Young shows Hound in a very bad light. Young is right to say that had a Ukip politician said what Hound did there would be calls for Farage to disown them, and Hound is showing an appalling lack of judgement to infer that someone whose child died, of all people, would like to see other children suffer the same fate
Maybe Young included 'BBC' in the headline as a dig to associate them with the disgusting comments, but don't let that overshadow what an appalling thing has been said.
I hope Hound makes a public apology and steps down from the euro election
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
The ukip bit was a small part of my point really... Wish I hadn't mentioned it now
I don't think they should be judged by those standards and I didn't say they should be either. But media and supporters of other parties are on the front foot looking for ukip nutters and had a David Silverster type said what Hound did, I guess it would be pounced upon
I am enjoying Josias's idea that Rufus Hound is a person of substance.
How quickly the left repudiate one of their own.
For such a normally intelligent poster that is a disappointingly dim comment. Presumably you'd be surprised to hear that Godfrey Bloom or Nigel Farage is one of your own?
Nobody had heard of this pillock Hound before this morning, it is thanks only to "one of your own" Toby Young giving Hound's nasty comments the oxygen of publicity that people are now aware of him.
I'd heard of him; I've even laughed at a few of his jokes.
So we've had the energy freeze lie, the 50p tax con, the deficit deceit & the oh so hard choice of taking the Winter Fuel Allowance off the rich (how is another question)...
The economic platform is looking damn impressive isn't it?
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Say after a yes vote, the EU rules that the only way that Scotland can remain/rejoin the EU is if it adopts the Euro.
Two of the SNP's assumptions for independence have proven false/incorrect.
That's going to lead to legal challenges from Scottish citizens that the referendum result is invalid.
Mr. Observer, that's a nice line for a newspaper from Kane, but does seem rather at odds with the more thoughtful view of education and aspiration in the clip Mr. Isam linked to.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
Rufus Hound@RufusHound17 mins @ianbirrell ...Was that he hadn't done anything illegal, but people were rightly outraged.Our tax system is broken. Deliberately constructed Reply
Ian Birrell@ianbirrell14 mins .@RufusHound You're spouting risible nonsense. You support immoral tax avoidance by yr rich pal. People chose to tax dodge. Utter hypocrisy
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Something Salmond is keen to gloss over....as I would, if I were holding 8% of the cards.....at best......
He keeps promising things (automatic EU membership, sterling zone, Schengen opt out, dual nationality, to name but four), not within his gift.....
Mr. Isam, cheers for posting that link. Russell Kane comes across as a very sensible chap.
What do you think of the coalition? I hate everything David Cameron’s doing with a passion but it’s quite refreshing to see someone actually doing something. It’s like someone punched me in the face after I’ve been sat in a room for 20 years.
I can honestly say the lure of being one of the in crowd by taking drugs and bunking off won me over at school. I was embarrassed at being the top stream with the nerds while my mates were having fun mucking about in the lower streams, and eventually I ended up somewhere in the middle
Salmond's silly, then, Miss Vance. If I were promising things I couldn't guarantee I'd offer a lapdance from Kate Upton, a winged horse for every Scot and free beer for life.
I don't alays agree with Toby Young but Rufus Hound is an absolute idiot.
It shows what a sorry state of affairs we are in today when more people are talking about Toby Youngs BBC reference than the disgusting content of Hounds article
Owen Jones sums up Labour economic philosophy 101:
Owen Jones@OwenJones844 mins @GuidoFawkes Half of someone’s earnings over a certain amount. Rich people like you owe the state for your wealth and you will pay for it.
Everything's going so well..... YES Scotland last night denied it was in meltdown after losing the last two members of its self-styled "top team" of directors.
The cross-party independence movement confirmed Ian Dommett and Stan Blackley had quit as director of marketing and deputy director of communities respectively, but insisted the organisation was in good shape. It is understood the exits were not voluntary.
The departures, which took place over the last 10 days, mean Yes Scotland has now lost all five members of what it called its top team since their appointment in September 2012. Yes camp insiders said such changes were common for a dynamic political campaign.
Isn't the point here that Hound is not a UKIP candidate, but is standing for a party that no-one has heard of and which has less than zero chance of ever winning elected office? What he said was despicable, but Toby (aged 50) has given it more publicity than ever would have been the case otherwise.
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
The National Health Action Party was co-founded by Dr Richard Taylor, who had such a zero chance at winning an elected office as an independent on health issues that he was an MP for nine years until 2010, on just such a platform.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Something Salmond is keen to gloss over....as I would, if I were holding 8% of the cards.....at best......
He keeps promising things (automatic EU membership, sterling zone, Schengen opt out, dual nationality, to name but four), not within his gift.....
To combine the two topics of today
Alex Salmond managed to make me laugh more than Rufus Hound ever has.
I'm specifically thinking of this
Alex Salmond spent £20,000 keeping secret non-existent EU legal advice
Alex Salmond spent almost £20,000 of taxpayers’ money to keep secret legal advice about an independent Scotland’s EU status that never even existed, it has emerged.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Say after a yes vote, the EU rules that the only way that Scotland can remain/rejoin the EU is if it adopts the Euro.
Two of the SNP's assumptions for independence have proven false/incorrect.
That's going to lead to legal challenges from Scottish citizens that the referendum result is invalid.
Were such a challenge, which would presumably be held in the Scottish courts, be successful would there not then be scope for an action in the English courts on the basis that they voted for independence and they can't change their mind now.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Say after a yes vote, the EU rules that the only way that Scotland can remain/rejoin the EU is if it adopts the Euro.
Two of the SNP's assumptions for independence have proven false/incorrect.
That's going to lead to legal challenges from Scottish citizens that the referendum result is invalid.
Were such a challenge, which would presumably be held in the Scottish courts, be successful would there not then be scope for an action in the English courts on the basis that they voted for independence and they can't change their mind now.
Well there is a history of the SNP/Salmond attacking the UK Supreme Court for interfering in Scottish matters
Alex Salmond provokes fury with attack on UK supreme court
First minister and justice secretary Kenny MacAskill accuse court of 'intervening aggressively' in Scottish legal system
It doesn't make his comments any more correct or pleasant.
Let's face it people make incorrect and unpleasant comments all the time. The best thing we can do is ignore them and switch over when you see RH on the telly.
I was watching Ross at the time and switched the moment Hound mounted his high horse. If I want to hear debates on the NHS I'll watch Question Time, thanks
I suspect I was not alone. How many of the show's advertisers want to be associated with this b*ll*cks??
Owen Jones@OwenJones8424 secs @GuidoFawkes What about the public sector creates internet you’ve used to make a killing? Pay up, otherwise you’re just a thief
Mr. Observer, that's a nice line for a newspaper from Kane, but does seem rather at odds with the more thoughtful view of education and aspiration in the clip Mr. Isam linked to.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
I suspect that Mr Kane is somewhat like me: a 2010 LD voter wondering what on earth to do in 2015. I'd like to vote Labour, but I cannot get very enthusiastic about that because although EdM is asking a few of the right questions, I am not that impressed with any of his answers. The LDs, meanwhile, are too much of a risk: some of them - Laws, Clegg, Alexander - seem to be pretty much Tory in all but name. The Tories? If it wasn't going to happen in 2010, and it wasn't, I can't see it ever happening. And who else is there?
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
Unionism in the Free State (capable of returning an MP in Dublin in the 1918 general election which was the de facto independence referendum) gradually died out over the years. But then the Free State had voted emphatically for independence. The referendum should settle the issue for a generation. If it's a 'yes' I think people will get used to it within that generation.
Mr. Taffys, that reminds me of the science prog hosted by Dara O'Briain. It looked quite interesting, although a shade too faux Top Gear, but I stopped watching when Marcus Brigstocke did a piece about 'nothingness' and within 3 minutes or so had made two 'jokes' about Clegg and Osborne.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
You have to bear in my mind that if Scotland votes for independence there's no automaticity for it.
Something Salmond is keen to gloss over....as I would, if I were holding 8% of the cards.....at best......
He keeps promising things (automatic EU membership, sterling zone, Schengen opt out, dual nationality, to name but four), not within his gift.....
To combine the two topics of today
Alex Salmond managed to make me laugh more than Rufus Hound ever has.
I'm specifically thinking of this
Alex Salmond spent £20,000 keeping secret non-existent EU legal advice
Alex Salmond spent almost £20,000 of taxpayers’ money to keep secret legal advice about an independent Scotland’s EU status that never even existed, it has emerged.
Mr. Observer, that's a nice line for a newspaper from Kane, but does seem rather at odds with the more thoughtful view of education and aspiration in the clip Mr. Isam linked to.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
I suspect that Mr Kane is somewhat like me: a 2010 LD voter wondering what on earth to do in 2015. I'd like to vote Labour, but I cannot get very enthusiastic about that because although EdM is asking a few of the right questions, I am not that impressed with any of his answers. The LDs, meanwhile, are too much of a risk: some of them - Laws, Clegg, Alexander - seem to be pretty much Tory in all but name. The Tories? If it wasn't going to happen in 2010, and it wasn't, I can't see it ever happening. And who else is there?
Mr SO, I feel your pain as I suffer the same way myself. I feel very bitter about Clegg; I knocked on doors etc for the Libs and LD's for many years, and feel that on many things, especially Civil Liberties, he's let us down.
OGH, Sir, could you please have a word with the system management and get us back the "Like" button!
Alex Salmond provokes fury with attack on UK supreme court
I've never understood why some on the site are so preoccupied with Alex Salmond. So he is trying every trick on the book to obtain independence for what he sees as a separate country. Why wouldn't he? That's what nationalists down the years have always done.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
Unionism in the Free State (capable of returning an MP in Dublin in the 1918 general election which was the de facto independence referendum) gradually died out over the years. But then the Free State had voted emphatically for independence. The referendum should settle the issue for a generation. If it's a 'yes' I think people will get used to it within that generation.
But some people will severely dislike the new status quo of an independent Scotland and would have every right to start their own party to reunite - the SNP in reverse. If and when the caledonian dream turns to shite (Euro, austerity, defaults, shipyard closures, you name it) this may intensify. Deep buyers' remorse may set in.
Alex Salmond provokes fury with attack on UK supreme court
I've never understood why some on the site are so preoccupied with Alex Salmond. So he is trying every trick on the book to obtain independence for what he sees as a separate country. Why wouldn't he? That's what nationalists down the years have always done.
He must be happy that the Labour party is lead by Mr Miliband and not SLAB Brown too !
Someone having fun.....comparing apples with bananas:
Ukip as much chance of winning European elections as finding alien life on Mars, say British public Despite Nigel Farage's prediction that the UK Independence party will cause an “earthquake” in British politics at the European Parliament elections, Britons give Ukip as much chance of winning as finding life on Mars.
Ipsos MORI’s research reveals what the British public think is likely to happen in 2014 compared with the odds offered by Ladbrokes. Only three in ten think it is likely that they will be the largest party, the same as think the NASA Mars Rover will find evidence of life on Mars, according to the pollsters' representative sample of 954 adults.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
Unionism in the Free State (capable of returning an MP in Dublin in the 1918 general election which was the de facto independence referendum) gradually died out over the years. But then the Free State had voted emphatically for independence. The referendum should settle the issue for a generation. If it's a 'yes' I think people will get used to it within that generation.
The Irish example is why I thought of it. The partition meant that support for Independence in the South was overwhelming, but a close result in the Scottish referendum looks far more likely.
Forty-five percent of the vote for No, say, would leave quite a large pool of Unionist voters, and so I wonder which of the currently Unionist parties would remain Unionist in principle - while accepting the referendum result for the time being - and which would abandon Unionism as being parties that essentially back the Constitutional status quo. It could make politics quite unpredictable in Scotland.
Mr. Observer, that's a nice line for a newspaper from Kane, but does seem rather at odds with the more thoughtful view of education and aspiration in the clip Mr. Isam linked to.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
I suspect that Mr Kane is somewhat like me: a 2010 LD voter wondering what on earth to do in 2015. I'd like to vote Labour, but I cannot get very enthusiastic about that because although EdM is asking a few of the right questions, I am not that impressed with any of his answers. The LDs, meanwhile, are too much of a risk: some of them - Laws, Clegg, Alexander - seem to be pretty much Tory in all but name. The Tories? If it wasn't going to happen in 2010, and it wasn't, I can't see it ever happening. And who else is there?
In other words,ed's economy solutions are frightening you ;-)
Mr. Observer, you could spoil your ballot. Or vote Morris Dancer, if you want a lapdance from Kate Upton and your own winged horse.
I'm not too bothered about having my own winged horse, it sounds like too much effort. But I do want you to take away winged horses from those that do have them.
But some people will severely dislike the new status quo of an independent Scotland and would have every right to start their own party to reunite - the SNP in reverse. If and when the caledonian dream turns to shite (Euro, austerity, defaults, shipyard closures, you name it) this may ontensify. Deep buyers' remorse may set in.
I think it's far more likely that the world wont fall apart if and when Scotland becomes independent and people will grow used to it and proud of it very quickly. The Free State had a terrible time of it in the early years after independence but unionist sentiment still declined significantly (though I accept it was more a case that they gave up the ghost given returning to the UK was never going to happen and joined Fine Gael as the least worst option).
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
Unionism in the Free State (capable of returning an MP in Dublin in the 1918 general election which was the de facto independence referendum) gradually died out over the years. But then the Free State had voted emphatically for independence. The referendum should settle the issue for a generation. If it's a 'yes' I think people will get used to it within that generation.
It will die out pretty swiftly as there would be no realistic chance of reunification. And, actually, it may well be pretty exciting to be in Scotland as everything is reworked. My guess is that the SNP will end up like the UCD in Spain, which saw the country through to democracy but then very rapidly disappeared as other parties either reasserted themselves or were established. They led the government from 1977 to 1982, and were then destroyed at the polls. I am not sure if they even exist today.
Supposing Scotland does vote for independence, as looks a bit more likely than a week ago, would there remain a political space for Unionism in Scottish politics, or would the issue be a dead duck for evermore?
Unionism in the Free State (capable of returning an MP in Dublin in the 1918 general election which was the de facto independence referendum) gradually died out over the years. But then the Free State had voted emphatically for independence. The referendum should settle the issue for a generation. If it's a 'yes' I think people will get used to it within that generation.
It will die out pretty swiftly as there would be no realistic chance of reunification. And, actually, it may well be pretty exciting to be in Scotland as everything is reworked. My guess is that the SNP will end up like the UCD in Spain, which saw the country through to democracy but then very rapidly disappeared as other parties either reasserted themselves or were established. They led the government from 1977 to 1982, and were then destroyed at the polls. I am not sure if they even exist today.
Eire rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, a year later they accepted it .Things can change even after referenda.
An exasperated Peter Oborne tries to administer a dose of sanity to his Party.
Oborne also says, though you didn't quote this bit:
The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor. I support this project because I believe that Gordon Brown’s welfare state forced some people into a life of dependency, thus taking away their human dignity.
There have been many people on welfare who need much more of an incentive to return to work.
The issue with 50p is similarly incentives. The incentive not to bother working harder since over half the extra income you generate goes in taxes, and the incentive to move away from Britain (or more commonly, not to come in the first place).
If we are going to bash the rich I'd far rather target wealth than income.
Mr. Observer, that's a nice line for a newspaper from Kane, but does seem rather at odds with the more thoughtful view of education and aspiration in the clip Mr. Isam linked to.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
I suspect that Mr Kane is somewhat like me: a 2010 LD voter wondering what on earth to do in 2015. I'd like to vote Labour, but I cannot get very enthusiastic about that because although EdM is asking a few of the right questions, I am not that impressed with any of his answers. The LDs, meanwhile, are too much of a risk: some of them - Laws, Clegg, Alexander - seem to be pretty much Tory in all but name. The Tories? If it wasn't going to happen in 2010, and it wasn't, I can't see it ever happening. And who else is there?
In other words,ed's economy solutions are frightening you ;-)
Ed does not frighten me. But he is not a leader. And he is too stuck in old ways of thinking. So, he correctly identifies issues that are very important - stagnating living standards, a failing banking system, overly-powerful big business - but he reaches for the comfort blanket when suggesting solutions.
An exasperated Peter Oborne tries to administer a dose of sanity to his Party.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is leading the fight inside the cabinet to strip a further £10 billion of welfare payments for the very poorest. Any decent human being must surely feel sick in the stomach that he is taking this action at the same time as cutting the amount of tax paid by people earning more than £150,000.
Have a look at the lists of people complaining today – they are mainly the very rich. As we learnt during the Blair years, the very rich tend to support the government of the day. Some of them shamefully avoid paying tax.
A Conservative Party with decent values should not reward these people. It should support hard-working, honest people. If the Chancellor understood this point, he would have taken middle earners out of the top rate of tax, not given a bonus to people who are already affluent.
So well done Ed Balls, who has had a hard time lately. He has given ordinary, decent people a serious reason for voting Labour at the coming election.
That is a good piece by Oborne, who is a thoughtful Tory, as unblinkered as the excellent David L on here and (sadly) very few other PB Conservative posters.
It's worth watching Ed Balls on Andrew Marr yesterday - he was very good. It's extraordinary how the Scote can swing from being very good one day to very poor the next – although I accept that his stammer is sometimes to blame.
The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor.
Oborne (if these are his true opinions) makes the same mistake as labour here. The poor are people on low incomes, whether they get them from benefits or from working.
When labour see a distinction between the two groups, they will become electable again.
An exasperated Peter Oborne tries to administer a dose of sanity to his Party.
Oborne also says, though you didn't quote this bit:
The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor. I support this project because I believe that Gordon Brown’s welfare state forced some people into a life of dependency, thus taking away their human dignity.
There have been many people on welfare who need much more of an incentive to return to work.
The issue with 50p is similarly incentives. The incentive not to bother working harder since over half the extra income you generate goes in taxes, and the incentive to move away from Britain (or more commonly, not to come in the first place).
If we are going to bash the rich I'd far rather target wealth than income.
We should tax wealth more as well as raising the top rate a bit.
We're all in this together.
Taxing wealth is a disaster, largely because it is very mobile and hard to track. Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value, and it can't be moved.
Then use the money raised to reduce other, more economically damaging, taxes
Taxing wealth is a disaster, largely because it is very mobile and hard to track. Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value, and it can't be moved.
Why specifically residential property? Why not just land value?
So we have a Kipper (@Nigel4England) telling us how well the Tories are doing on the economy and an LD (@SO) telling us how although the LDs have proven themselves a bit righty, he is very reluctant to vote for EdM.
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
People on £150,000+ will still have lower marginal rates than parent on £50-£60k, because of the recent introduction of the somewhat awkward Child Benefit Tax. The government will find this very hard to argue against so politically it's a sound move by Balls in that regard*
*economically it probably isn't a good move, because of the Laffer Curve effect, but that's quite a hard sell to electorate, most of whom have a very poor grasp of economics.
Taxing wealth is a disaster, largely because it is very mobile and hard to track. Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value, and it can't be moved.
Why specifically residential property? Why not just land value?
Because it's far easier, there is more asset turnover (allowing for valuations to be automatically updated) and is also more broadly spread so rates can be lower. Plus commercial property is alreay pretty heavily taxed.
Ballpark, 1% p.a. on residential property would raise £50bn p.a. which would allow you to eliminate the central element of council tax, stamp duty, reduce employer NICs and possibly increase the thresholds for the 20%/40% tax rates
An exasperated Peter Oborne tries to administer a dose of sanity to his Party.
Oborne also says, though you didn't quote this bit:
The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor. I support this project because I believe that Gordon Brown’s welfare state forced some people into a life of dependency, thus taking away their human dignity.
There have been many people on welfare who need much more of an incentive to return to work.
The issue with 50p is similarly incentives. The incentive not to bother working harder since over half the extra income you generate goes in taxes, and the incentive to move away from Britain (or more commonly, not to come in the first place).
If we are going to bash the rich I'd far rather target wealth than income.
We should tax wealth more as well as raising the top rate a bit.
We're all in this together.
Taxing wealth is a disaster, largely because it is very mobile and hard to track. Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value, and it can't be moved.
Then use the money raised to reduce other, more economically damaging, taxes
Yeah, by "wealth" I was thinking along the lines of a mansion tax.
A mansion tax doesn't work, especially if it is a slab structure, because there are so many peverse incentives around thresholds. Additionally you will end up in massive valuation disputes. Far easier to simply tax all residential property at a flat percentage based on value.
So we have a Kipper (@Nigel4England) telling us how well the Tories are doing on the economy and an LD (@SO) telling us how although the LDs have proven themselves a bit righty, he is very reluctant to vote for EdM.
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
As far as I know Nigel is a Ukip member and will vote Ukip. I cannot speak for SO, but I can say that you are confusing anecdote with empirical evidence.
So we have a Kipper (@Nigel4England) telling us how well the Tories are doing on the economy and an LD (@SO) telling us how although the LDs have proven themselves a bit righty, he is very reluctant to vote for EdM.
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
As far as I know Nigel is a Ukip member and will vote Ukip. I cannot speak for SO, but I can say that you are confusing anecdote with empirical evidence.
Why don't you speak for yourself instead of either?
I have asked Nigel what, if the economy is going as well as he thinks it is, is the compelling reason for voting UKIP. So we will await that, if he deigns to respond.
As for SO, as you say with such acuity, you cannot speak for him. I would be interested to hear from him, however, about his options, come GE2015.
And then how about you - do you think the premise reasonable that Kippers will return to Cons as being the best party possible (rather than the best possible party) and the LDs will stick as LDs because they can't bring themselves to vote Lab, Tories are out of the question and they want to contribute to the political landscape?
Patrick Wintour@patrickwintour2 mins Labour drowned deficit message - released 22.00 hours Friday - with 50p tax at 11.08 am Saturday - 13 hours - 8 of which voters asleep.
Presumably because they want the media to swallow the headline of seeking a surplus by 2020 and thus allow Labour MPs to reference it without the nuanced detail or be picked up on it all the way to the GE.
I think the left should be careful with their glib (and of course highly patronising) view that the public won;t understand that lower top tax rates make the exchequer more money for schoolsn 'ospitals than high top tax rates.
So we have a Kipper (@Nigel4England) telling us how well the Tories are doing on the economy and an LD (@SO) telling us how although the LDs have proven themselves a bit righty, he is very reluctant to vote for EdM.
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
As far as I know Nigel is a Ukip member and will vote Ukip. I cannot speak for SO, but I can say that you are confusing anecdote with empirical evidence.
Why don't you speak for yourself instead of either?
I have asked Nigel what, if the economy is going as well as he thinks it is, is the compelling reason for voting UKIP. So we will await that, if he deigns to respond.
As for SO, as you say with such acuity, you cannot speak for him. I would be interested to hear from him, however, about his options, come GE2015.
And then how about you - do you think the premise reasonable that Kippers will return to Cons as being the best party possible (rather than the best possible party) and the LDs will stick as LDs because they can't bring themselves to vote Lab, Tories are out of the question and they want to contribute to the political landscape?
For what it's worth I think both main parties will poll pretty much the same percentage next time – say Lab 36, Con 35.
Hmm... I have never heard of this Hound chap and also have to admit that I had not heard of Kate Upton either although a quick google suggests several excellent reasons to be aware of the latter.
I spent my lunch wondering if this site was simply too cool and trendy for me. Then I remembered OGH. I will persevere.
I really like the idea of a flying horse though, that is a winner.
That is a good piece by Oborne, who is a thoughtful Tory,
Little Cub Scout (without cap)
It is not a good article by Peter Oborne as it by-passes economic reality to play to the gallery with sentiment.
The task of "making work pay" has to involve 'push' and 'pull' measures.
The 'pull' measures are easy and mostly popular: raising the starting threshold for paying tax (Lib Dems's £10,000), lowering tax on the first slice of income (Balls's 10%), generous in work credits (Brown and LD's childcare subsidies), NI tax cuts and incentives (Osborne), keeping income and wage inflation low (Osborne ) etc.
It is the 'push' measures that get the soft hearted bleating: capping aggregate benefits, below inflation uprating of benefits (Osborne), reassessing eligibility for benefits (IDS & Atos), redirecting benefit spend to support greatest need ('spare room subsidy'), disallowing housing benefit allowance from school leavers etc.
It is the gap between a benefit dependency and work reward which creates the scale of incentive. Widening it from both ends accelerates the realisation of policy goals. Getting the benefits dependent out of their beds and into work is a moral as well as economic imperative. With a recovering economy and expanding employment this should be easy but today's world is more competitive than a few decades ago. If a youngster doesn't get out of bed, the job vacancy will go to a presentable, hard working and eager Bulgarian.
It is an economic imperative for the government to eliminate the deficit before the deficit eliminates us all. Interest costs on debt incurred before the books balance will total £75 bn per year which is near enough three quarters of the NHS budget. If the books are not balanced and further spending cuts applied debt interest will very soon start costing us all more than the NHS and displace other forms of vital social spending.
In this situation simply claiming that higher taxes would be a fairer solution than cutting social benefits only works if such tax rises would reduce the deficit. In many cases, such as the 50p top rate of tax, they won't reduce the deficit at all. They will just reduce growth, inbound investment, productivity and incentives.
The top 1% of income tax payers, some 300,000 taxpayers, already pay nearly 30% of all direct taxes collected by the government. Reducing the top rate to 45% has seen this proportion rise as well as the total income tax take increase by £8 bn. These people are the most mobile and discretionary of workers: they have the resources to chose where they work and are the group of tax-payers most likely to invest and employ in the UK. Raising their taxes just to feel good is senseless given the costs. Taxes for this group should be set at the rate which yields the optimal net benefit for the economy as a whole.
Great chancellors need to be tough and unsentimental. And George is being both to all our benefit.
"Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value ..."
Mr. Charles,
A known value, really? Then what is the value of my house? Is it what I paid for it? Is it what I could sell it for, now? Is it what a spiv of an estate agent says it is worth? Is it what a chap from the council values it at? That's four different figures already and then there are still the issue of a properties condition. Should it be valued if it were in tip-top condition or as found? A known value? I don't think so.
For tax purposes the value of a residential property can only be assessed in quite broad bands and those already exist. Isn't what you are suggesting just a massive increase in council tax called by a different name? Furthermore wouldn't your suggestion result in local councils being even more reliant on central government?
There is a large constituency on the left that feels it's acceptable to throw abuse at the Right as they feel their morals are suspect in the first place. This is how you get erstwhile intelligent adults saying, in all seriousness, expressing joy at Thatcher's death and accusing Cameron of 'wanting' kids deaths. They would (rightly) condemn any comments coming the other way criticising the Left because they would never believe the ethics of those on the Left to be in question.
You only have to pose a counter factual to show this to be the case. If, say, the NHS had a budget of £200bn and consumed 14-15% of GDP people like Hood would still make the same accusation against Cameron even if he maintained the NHS budget at that level. Prob there'd be even fewer deaths, albeit not massive numbers, but that's not the point. Cameron would be judged by any action that was easily fitted into his preconceived prejudice.
So we have a Kipper (@Nigel4England) telling us how well the Tories are doing on the economy and an LD (@SO) telling us how although the LDs have proven themselves a bit righty, he is very reluctant to vote for EdM.
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
As far as I know Nigel is a Ukip member and will vote Ukip. I cannot speak for SO, but I can say that you are confusing anecdote with empirical evidence.
Why don't you speak for yourself instead of either?
I have asked Nigel what, if the economy is going as well as he thinks it is, is the compelling reason for voting UKIP. So we will await that, if he deigns to respond.
As for SO, as you say with such acuity, you cannot speak for him. I would be interested to hear from him, however, about his options, come GE2015.
And then how about you - do you think the premise reasonable that Kippers will return to Cons as being the best party possible (rather than the best possible party) and the LDs will stick as LDs because they can't bring themselves to vote Lab, Tories are out of the question and they want to contribute to the political landscape?
I find tribal politics both childish and depressing, with no bigger culprit than OGH.
I believe in giving credit where it's due and Osborne has done a remarkable job of steering the economy back to growth whilst avoiding mass unemployment. Similarly I regard the Lib Dems as a bunch of traitors but I give them huge credit for raising the personal allowance to £10,000.
As for why I vote UKIP and will do so at the GE, I believe we would be much better off out of Europe and I am a passionate believer in giving bright working class kids a chance, though I believe Gove is doing a good job I would like the return to full grammar school education.
Comments
Whilst the Tom Chambers disgrace has put me off SCD even as a betting distraction, it does get a huge number of viewers.
He's standing in the European elections for the National Health Action Party.
He won the Strictly Come Dancing Christmas Special.
Jeez
Do you really think that UKIP should be judged by the standards of the National Health Action party? You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Tory, Labour or LD candidate had said what Hound has said the pressure would be on those parties to disown him/her too. Surely it's those three UKIP should be comparing themselves with now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25873840
They are the party founded by Dr Richard Taylor who was an MP between 2001 and 2010, he was the one who defeated one of Blair's health ministers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Action_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Taylor_(British_politician)
It could happen again, given the right seat.
Edit: The damned TSE beat me again, the rogue!
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-06-20/fellow-comedian-defends-carrs-tax-avoidance/
"Comedian Rufus Hound defended his friend Jimmy Carr by pointing out that the tax avoidance scheme he uses, branded as "very dodgy and morally wrong" by the Prime Minister, is perfectly legal.
@RufusHound
Jimmy Carr is a very nice man who works incredibly hard and has donated loads of money to good causes. He's done absolutely nothing illegal."
Lol.
I hate everything David Cameron’s doing with a passion but it’s quite refreshing to see someone actually doing something. It’s like someone punched me in the face after I’ve been sat in a room for 20 years.
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/05/ns-interview-russell-kane-comedian
He is bang on about grammar schools.
The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem and are powerless over it.
Step away from the glue bag. We can help you.
Nobody had heard of this pillock Hound before this morning, it is thanks only to "one of your own" Toby Young giving Hound's nasty comments the oxygen of publicity that people are now aware of him.
Incidentally, I saw him at Chichester in "Neville's Island" and he was very good in it. I also had an interested chat beforehand with someone who knew him in his schooldays. (He attended Frensham Heights: fees currently £16,000 pa.)
They'd need the right candidates: Taylor was a doctor, very knowledgeable, and IMHO was a good member of parliament (and there are some things I really didn't agree with him on).
I don't think they should be judged by those standards and I didn't say they should be either. But media and supporters of other parties are on the front foot looking for ukip nutters and had a David Silverster type said what Hound did, I guess it would be pounced upon
Does that make me 'nobody'? ;-)
The economic platform is looking damn impressive isn't it?
Say after a yes vote, the EU rules that the only way that Scotland can remain/rejoin the EU is if it adopts the Euro.
Two of the SNP's assumptions for independence have proven false/incorrect.
That's going to lead to legal challenges from Scottish citizens that the referendum result is invalid.
Mr. Jessop, it does not make you a nobody, although your taste in comedy might be suspect. The only way to be certain is to buy this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/) and see how often you laugh. The more times, the better.
Ian Birrell@ianbirrell41 mins
So @RufusHound says he wants to save the NHS http://rufushound.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/david-and-jeremy-want-your-kids-to-die-unless-youre-rich/ … - yet he supports tax avoidance by his rich chums http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-06-20/fellow-comedian-defends-carrs-tax-avoidance/ …
Reply
Rufus Hound@RufusHound17 mins
@ianbirrell ...Was that he hadn't done anything illegal, but people were rightly outraged.Our tax system is broken. Deliberately constructed
Reply
Ian Birrell@ianbirrell14 mins
.@RufusHound You're spouting risible nonsense. You support immoral tax avoidance by yr rich pal. People chose to tax dodge. Utter hypocrisy
He keeps promising things (automatic EU membership, sterling zone, Schengen opt out, dual nationality, to name but four), not within his gift.....
I can honestly say the lure of being one of the in crowd by taking drugs and bunking off won me over at school. I was embarrassed at being the top stream with the nerds while my mates were having fun mucking about in the lower streams, and eventually I ended up somewhere in the middle
Vote Morris Dancer!
Owen Jones@OwenJones844 mins
@GuidoFawkes Half of someone’s earnings over a certain amount. Rich people like you owe the state for your wealth and you will pay for it.
YES Scotland last night denied it was in meltdown after losing the last two members of its self-styled "top team" of directors.
The cross-party independence movement confirmed Ian Dommett and Stan Blackley had quit as director of marketing and deputy director of communities respectively, but insisted the organisation was in good shape. It is understood the exits were not voluntary.
The departures, which took place over the last 10 days, mean Yes Scotland has now lost all five members of what it called its top team since their appointment in September 2012. Yes camp insiders said such changes were common for a dynamic political campaign.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-scotland-lose-last-two-from-top-team.23272928
It doesn't make his comments any more correct or pleasant.
;-)
Alex Salmond managed to make me laugh more than Rufus Hound ever has.
I'm specifically thinking of this
Alex Salmond spent £20,000 keeping secret non-existent EU legal advice
Alex Salmond spent almost £20,000 of taxpayers’ money to keep secret legal advice about an independent Scotland’s EU status that never even existed, it has emerged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10367759/Alex-Salmond-spent-20000-keeping-secret-non-existent-EU-legal-advice.html
Alex Salmond provokes fury with attack on UK supreme court
First minister and justice secretary Kenny MacAskill accuse court of 'intervening aggressively' in Scottish legal system
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/alex-salmond-scotland-supreme-court
Let's face it people make incorrect and unpleasant comments all the time. The best thing we can do is ignore them and switch over when you see RH on the telly.
I was watching Ross at the time and switched the moment Hound mounted his high horse. If I want to hear debates on the NHS I'll watch Question Time, thanks
I suspect I was not alone. How many of the show's advertisers want to be associated with this b*ll*cks??
Owen Jones@OwenJones8424 secs
@GuidoFawkes What about the public sector creates internet you’ve used to make a killing? Pay up, otherwise you’re just a thief
OGH, Sir, could you please have a word with the system management and get us back the "Like" button!
I've never understood why some on the site are so preoccupied with Alex Salmond. So he is trying every trick on the book to obtain independence for what he sees as a separate country. Why wouldn't he? That's what nationalists down the years have always done.
Ukip as much chance of winning European elections as finding alien life on Mars, say British public
Despite Nigel Farage's prediction that the UK Independence party will cause an “earthquake” in British politics at the European Parliament elections, Britons give Ukip as much chance of winning as finding life on Mars.
Ipsos MORI’s research reveals what the British public think is likely to happen in 2014 compared with the odds offered by Ladbrokes. Only three in ten think it is likely that they will be the largest party, the same as think the NASA Mars Rover will find evidence of life on Mars, according to the pollsters' representative sample of 954 adults.
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/ukip-as-much-chance-of-winning-european-elections-as-finding-alien-life-on-mars-say-british-public-9087515.html
Forty-five percent of the vote for No, say, would leave quite a large pool of Unionist voters, and so I wonder which of the currently Unionist parties would remain Unionist in principle - while accepting the referendum result for the time being - and which would abandon Unionism as being parties that essentially back the Constitutional status quo. It could make politics quite unpredictable in Scotland.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/01/27/how-tories-can-win-next-election/
"To secure an overall majority, you need to extend your lead over Labour to 8-9 points, and for a working majority to at least ten."
And from last summer:
"Labour could need .. a national vote lead of 7 per cent [for a majority]"
http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
So that's a hung Parliament nailed on then?!
If we are going to bash the rich I'd far rather target wealth than income.
It's worth watching Ed Balls on Andrew Marr yesterday - he was very good. It's extraordinary how the Scote can swing from being very good one day to very poor the next – although I accept that his stammer is sometimes to blame.
Oborne (if these are his true opinions) makes the same mistake as labour here. The poor are people on low incomes, whether they get them from benefits or from working.
When labour see a distinction between the two groups, they will become electable again.
We're all in this together.
Taxing wealth is a disaster, largely because it is very mobile and hard to track. Much simpler to tax residential property properly. It's clear, there is a known value, and it can't be moved.
Then use the money raised to reduce other, more economically damaging, taxes
'Oborne unsurprisingly is out of touch with the majority on welfare & obviously hasn't watched Benefit Street.
Rachel Reeves is promising to be even tougher on benefits than the Coalition.
So is Rachel Reeves telling the truth or is Ed Balls really going to give even more money to Benefits Street?
And people wonder at the contention that Kippers will drift back to the Cons while LDs might just stay put as LDs. It is such an evident likelihood.
*economically it probably isn't a good move, because of the Laffer Curve effect, but that's quite a hard sell to electorate, most of whom have a very poor grasp of economics.
Everyone on a tax rate of 35% no NI and PA.
I can live with that.
Equality for all.
Ballpark, 1% p.a. on residential property would raise £50bn p.a. which would allow you to eliminate the central element of council tax, stamp duty, reduce employer NICs and possibly increase the thresholds for the 20%/40% tax rates
Just interested after reading an article on the Speccie.
Also how much if the child benefit threshold was increased to say £75k?
A mansion tax doesn't work, especially if it is a slab structure, because there are so many peverse incentives around thresholds. Additionally you will end up in massive valuation disputes. Far easier to simply tax all residential property at a flat percentage based on value.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-lib-dems-to-seek-new-parliamentary-candidate-1-5835056
as Portsmouth LibDem councillor resigns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25908996
It will be in my manifesto when I run as the country's first directly elected Tyrant.
I have asked Nigel what, if the economy is going as well as he thinks it is, is the compelling reason for voting UKIP. So we will await that, if he deigns to respond.
As for SO, as you say with such acuity, you cannot speak for him. I would be interested to hear from him, however, about his options, come GE2015.
And then how about you - do you think the premise reasonable that Kippers will return to Cons as being the best party possible (rather than the best possible party) and the LDs will stick as LDs because they can't bring themselves to vote Lab, Tories are out of the question and they want to contribute to the political landscape?
27/01/2014 11:25
Sunday Politics @Nigel_Farage UKIP weather most viewed item on BBC website bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi… #bbcsp
Labour drowned deficit message - released 22.00 hours Friday - with 50p tax at 11.08 am Saturday - 13 hours - 8 of which voters asleep.
Presumably because they want the media to swallow the headline of seeking a surplus by 2020 and thus allow Labour MPs to reference it without the nuanced detail or be picked up on it all the way to the GE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25913781
I spent my lunch wondering if this site was simply too cool and trendy for me. Then I remembered OGH. I will persevere.
I really like the idea of a flying horse though, that is a winner.
Labour 50p tax plan: Why have some Tories gone quiet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25913781
Did you guess ;-)
Why not ask labours lord sugar his views on labour new tax policy ?
That is a good piece by Oborne, who is a thoughtful Tory,
Little Cub Scout (without cap)
It is not a good article by Peter Oborne as it by-passes economic reality to play to the gallery with sentiment.
The task of "making work pay" has to involve 'push' and 'pull' measures.
The 'pull' measures are easy and mostly popular: raising the starting threshold for paying tax (Lib Dems's £10,000), lowering tax on the first slice of income (Balls's 10%), generous in work credits (Brown and LD's childcare subsidies), NI tax cuts and incentives (Osborne), keeping income and wage inflation low (Osborne ) etc.
It is the 'push' measures that get the soft hearted bleating: capping aggregate benefits, below inflation uprating of benefits (Osborne), reassessing eligibility for benefits (IDS & Atos), redirecting benefit spend to support greatest need ('spare room subsidy'), disallowing housing benefit allowance from school leavers etc.
It is the gap between a benefit dependency and work reward which creates the scale of incentive. Widening it from both ends accelerates the realisation of policy goals. Getting the benefits dependent out of their beds and into work is a moral as well as economic imperative. With a recovering economy and expanding employment this should be easy but today's world is more competitive than a few decades ago. If a youngster doesn't get out of bed, the job vacancy will go to a presentable, hard working and eager Bulgarian.
It is an economic imperative for the government to eliminate the deficit before the deficit eliminates us all. Interest costs on debt incurred before the books balance will total £75 bn per year which is near enough three quarters of the NHS budget. If the books are not balanced and further spending cuts applied debt interest will very soon start costing us all more than the NHS and displace other forms of vital social spending.
In this situation simply claiming that higher taxes would be a fairer solution than cutting social benefits only works if such tax rises would reduce the deficit. In many cases, such as the 50p top rate of tax, they won't reduce the deficit at all. They will just reduce growth, inbound investment, productivity and incentives.
The top 1% of income tax payers, some 300,000 taxpayers, already pay nearly 30% of all direct taxes collected by the government. Reducing the top rate to 45% has seen this proportion rise as well as the total income tax take increase by £8 bn. These people are the most mobile and discretionary of workers: they have the resources to chose where they work and are the group of tax-payers most likely to invest and employ in the UK. Raising their taxes just to feel good is senseless given the costs. Taxes for this group should be set at the rate which yields the optimal net benefit for the economy as a whole.
Great chancellors need to be tough and unsentimental. And George is being both to all our benefit.
Mr. Charles,
A known value, really? Then what is the value of my house? Is it what I paid for it? Is it what I could sell it for, now? Is it what a spiv of an estate agent says it is worth? Is it what a chap from the council values it at? That's four different figures already and then there are still the issue of a properties condition. Should it be valued if it were in tip-top condition or as found? A known value? I don't think so.
For tax purposes the value of a residential property can only be assessed in quite broad bands and those already exist. Isn't what you are suggesting just a massive increase in council tax called by a different name? Furthermore wouldn't your suggestion result in local councils being even more reliant on central government?
You only have to pose a counter factual to show this to be the case. If, say, the NHS had a budget of £200bn and consumed 14-15% of GDP people like Hood would still make the same accusation against Cameron even if he maintained the NHS budget at that level. Prob there'd be even fewer deaths, albeit not massive numbers, but that's not the point. Cameron would be judged by any action that was easily fitted into his preconceived prejudice.
I believe in giving credit where it's due and Osborne has done a remarkable job of steering the economy back to growth whilst avoiding mass unemployment. Similarly I regard the Lib Dems as a bunch of traitors but I give them huge credit for raising the personal allowance to £10,000.
As for why I vote UKIP and will do so at the GE, I believe we would be much better off out of Europe and I am a passionate believer in giving bright working class kids a chance, though I believe Gove is doing a good job I would like the return to full grammar school education.