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.
TSE, what bollocks , when its done its done and unionists clutching at straws and hoping for legal challenges is a dream. The question is not do you want independence if we are in the EU and use the euro. Only a lawyer could tout for business on that less than flimsy reason. You would be laughed out of court.
Great chancellors need to be tough and unsentimental. And George is being both to all our benefit.
is it possible that if the chancellor cuts taxes for the low paid in this year's budget, he will cite the extra money he is getting from the rich since cutting their taxes?
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 was right the first time , a complete non entity. An obscure would be comedian.
Great chancellors need to be tough and unsentimental. And George is being both to all our benefit.
is it possible that if the chancellor cuts taxes for the low paid in this year's budget, he will cite the extra money he is getting from the rich since cutting their taxes?
I'm sure if the OBR gives him the backing, he'd love to portray a tax cut for the many on the back of increased revenues from the 'tax cut for millionaires' - that would be a powerful message for the election but it hangs on the Laffer curve and the OBR opinion to give him the bullets and that's a long-shot.
There is actually a not insignificant chance of finding life on Mars. A few scientists even expect a few primitive bacteria to be living in the polar ice caps, where there may be some liquid water hidden under the surface.
Of course, by 'life' the public prob mean little green men but it would amuse me if UKIP topped a nationwide election *and* life was discovered on Mars.
I think it is a little unfair to call Oborne "thoughtful". He is a provocateur who is paid to stir things up.
That said, the tories are really too keen to emphasise the ever increasing percentage of tax paid by the highest paid and not nearly keen enough to recognise that this is in large part being driven by ever greater degrees of inequality. Boris in the Telegraph today was a typical example.
What I think is most telling against Balls is that he admits that he does not know what going back to 50% will actually raise. The best he can say is that in a totally different environment the increase from 40% to 50% raised £10bn over 3 years. At the moment it is still not entirely clear it will raise more at all.
That is why I called it a spite tax at the weekend. It is there not for the primary purpose of raising money but to express moral disapproval of success. Despite my concerns about equality that is wrong.
Chancellors, especially Chancellors with extremely high deficits, need to be focussed on what produces the maximum return for the country. Not so high that the income is lost abroad but high enough to earn the money needed for services.
I also thought Cameron was getting into some difficulties with this with Evan Davies this morning. If the answer to the cost of living argument is tax cuts for the lower paid just what sort of priority is being given to deficit reduction and just how easily can the tories accuse Labour of irresponsibility? I think the answer to that question is very easily indeed but people in glass house etc.
My position in 2010 was that we needed both tax increases and spending cuts to reduce a very dangerous deficit. I still think that. This emphasis on tax cuts when we are borrowing £100bn+ is sounding a very off note to me. I understand the politics of it: there had to be an an answer to Ed and the cost of living "crisis" but the USP of actually caring about our finances is being lost. Add on to that cuts in welfare and you have an even more difficult package to sell.
On 50p tax, it will tend to be popular with the public but they also won't like Labour doing it - it plays to all the floating voters concerns about the party.
Any probs the Tories might have had in fundraising to fight 2015 have prob now been solved. It's also clear there's a clear attack line on Labour available to the Tories very similar to the 1992 bombshell posters.
I imagine Osborne will be desperate to delay interest rate rises until post-election and take other measures to boost disposable income on both the April 2014 and April 2015 budgets to stiffen up the Tory vote and invite back enough UKIP defectors for him to cross the line at 36-37% of the vote.
On 50p tax, it will tend to be popular with the public but they also won't like Labour doing it - it plays to all the floating voters concerns about the party.
Any probs the Tories might have had in fundraising to fight 2015 have prob now been solved. It's also clear there's a clear attack line on Labour available to the Tories very similar to the 1992 bombshell posters.
I imagine Osborne will be desperate to delay interest rate rises until post-election and take other measures to boost disposable income on both the April 2014 and April 2015 budgets to stiffen up the Tory vote and invite back enough UKIP defectors for him to cross the line at 36-37% of the vote.
Really? So you will be expecting this move to push LAB VI downwards.
Do I now tell the prospective 50% rate clients to defer their pension contributions in 2014/15 so they have larger annual allowances available in 2015/16 and get more tax relief that way?
There is actually a not insignificant chance of finding life on Mars. A few scientists even expect a few primitive bacteria to be living in the polar ice caps, where there may be some liquid water hidden under the surface.
Of course, by 'life' the public prob mean little green men but it would amuse me if UKIP topped a nationwide election *and* life was discovered on Mars.
The chance of UKIP topping the Euros is considerably higher than finding life on Mars though
The headline may not reflect what the public think though, for instance someone may think there is a 5% chance of life on mars and a 45% chance of UKIP winning the Euros but they'd think neither is LIKELY !
Though he also thinks that the Lib Dems will lose quite a lot of seats. I'm not sure all these thresholds are internally consistent.
Kellner tells Cameron:
You like to present yourself as a man of the people. Don’t just say it. Prove it.
After more than eight years as leader of the Conservative Party I'm fairly sure that only some major revelation - such as actually being adopted from a Romanian orphanage - would be capable of changing people's perceptions of Cameron to the extent that Kellner suggests is necessary.
It really isn't going to happen. This suggests that Kellner's piece should really be entitled: "Why the Tories will fail to win the next general election - again"
The 33-32 lead on "...started to sort out the welfare system so that benefits go only to those who truly need and deserve the money" against "...unfairly picked on people who need help, but* cutting welfare benefits and imposing such burdens as the ‘bedroom tax’" does not, however, suggest that the country is ready to decisively reject Osborne's war on welfare. So there are also difficulties for the Opposition in the figures.
* I assume "by", and that this typo was not in the survey itself, and that it was it did not put off ~30% of the electorate from selecting that option because they could not find themselves agreeing with something containing a typo...
I think it is a little unfair to call Oborne "thoughtful". He is a provocateur who is paid to stir things up.
That said, the tories are really too keen to emphasise the ever increasing percentage of tax paid by the highest paid and not nearly keen enough to recognise that this is in large part being driven by ever greater degrees of inequality. Boris in the Telegraph today was a typical example.
What I think is most telling against Balls is that he admits that he does not know what going back to 50% will actually raise. The best he can say is that in a totally different environment the increase from 40% to 50% raised £10bn over 3 years. At the moment it is still not entirely clear it will raise more at all.
That is why I called it a spite tax at the weekend. It is there not for the primary purpose of raising money but to express moral disapproval of success. Despite my concerns about equality that is wrong.
(Edit: one paragraph)
I also thought Cameron was getting into some difficulties with this with Evan Davies this morning. If the answer to the cost of living argument is tax cuts for the lower paid just what sort of priority is being given to deficit reduction and just how easily can the tories accuse Labour of irresponsibility? I think the answer to that question is very easily indeed but people in glass house etc.
My position in 2010 was that we needed both tax increases and spending cuts to reduce a very dangerous deficit. I still think that. This emphasis on tax cuts when we are borrowing £100bn+ is sounding a very off note to me. I understand the politics of it: there had to be an an answer to Ed and the cost of living "crisis" but the USP of actually caring about our finances is being lost. Add on to that cuts in welfare and you have an even more difficult package to sell.
David, David, David.
Not for the first time you make the classic error of applying logic here.
EdB will be high-fiving to hear his 50p wheeze described as spiteful; it makes Lab more electable. Having lost the economic argument there is now only the visceral hatred card to play. And it has every chance of succeeding.
As for Cam, he has to face the competing aims of deficit reduction and being PM in June 2015. The Cons were "brave" to sort-of tell it like it was, pre-2010, even though subsequent actions haven't accorded with that tough talk.
But I fear they will capitulate now in the face of this assault and promise all-sorts, knowing it's re-priming the time bomb that we are tortuously distancing ourselves from (totally lost in that analogy, btw).
Which means after a brief spell of ingenuousness we are back to all parties playing politics. And the country in a worse economic position. Which would be a shame.
Emily mathis as let the real reason of the newsnight story out of the bag,some people means tories and you wonder why some people think they is a anti tory smell at the beeb.
I think it is a little unfair to call Oborne "thoughtful". He is a provocateur who is paid to stir things up.
That said, the tories are really too keen to emphasise the ever increasing percentage of tax paid by the highest paid and not nearly keen enough to recognise that this is in large part being driven by ever greater degrees of inequality. Boris in the Telegraph today was a typical example.
What I think is most telling against Balls is that he admits that he does not know what going back to 50% will actually raise. The best he can say is that in a totally different environment the increase from 40% to 50% raised £10bn over 3 years. At the moment it is still not entirely clear it will raise more at all.
That is why I called it a spite tax at the weekend. It is there not for the primary purpose of raising money but to express moral disapproval of success. Despite my concerns about equality that is wrong.
Chancellors, especially Chancellors with extremely high deficits, need to be focussed on what produces the maximum return for the country. Not so high that the income is lost abroad but high enough to earn the money needed for services.
I also thought Cameron was getting into some difficulties with this with Evan Davies this morning. If the answer to the cost of living argument is tax cuts for the lower paid just what sort of priority is being given to deficit reduction and just how easily can the tories accuse Labour of irresponsibility? I think the answer to that question is very easily indeed but people in glass house etc.
My position in 2010 was that we needed both tax increases and spending cuts to reduce a very dangerous deficit. I still think that. This emphasis on tax cuts when we are borrowing £100bn+ is sounding a very off note to me. I understand the politics of it: there had to be an an answer to Ed and the cost of living "crisis" but the USP of actually caring about our finances is being lost. Add on to that cuts in welfare and you have an even more difficult package to sell.
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.
Vote Morris Dancer!
MD, do not listen to these numpties, Salmond has promised nothing other than a referendum. It is a straight YES or NO , no if buts maybe or Euro. These unionists are pathetic.
"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?
My view would be on last sale price (this also has the advantage of addressing the 'widow in big house' problem). The downside is that the tax take ramps up only over time as properties get sold. You would probably need to include a mechanism for an uprating for any new building/extensions. Perhaps include a mechanism for it to increase each year by RPI or CPI.
In terms of local council spending, this falls into two categories: (a) mandated expenditure by central government and (b) discretionary spending. Category (a) should be funded by central government - category (b) should be raised locally.
Comments
it appears they've found er labour tax-efficient donor John Mills to to be their capitalist supporter of it....now that is powerful.
George Eaton@georgeeaton29m
Labour should really find some "responsible capitalists" to back it over 50p tax rate.
is it possible that if the chancellor cuts taxes for the low paid in this year's budget, he will cite the extra money he is getting from the rich since cutting their taxes?
That article reads a bit to me as if Oborne was leaned on to write an opposing view clickbait piece.
Its all change at the Telly editorially at the moment, who knows what's going on.
Of course, by 'life' the public prob mean little green men but it would amuse me if UKIP topped a nationwide election *and* life was discovered on Mars.
That said, the tories are really too keen to emphasise the ever increasing percentage of tax paid by the highest paid and not nearly keen enough to recognise that this is in large part being driven by ever greater degrees of inequality. Boris in the Telegraph today was a typical example.
What I think is most telling against Balls is that he admits that he does not know what going back to 50% will actually raise. The best he can say is that in a totally different environment the increase from 40% to 50% raised £10bn over 3 years. At the moment it is still not entirely clear it will raise more at all.
That is why I called it a spite tax at the weekend. It is there not for the primary purpose of raising money but to express moral disapproval of success. Despite my concerns about equality that is wrong.
Chancellors, especially Chancellors with extremely high deficits, need to be focussed on what produces the maximum return for the country. Not so high that the income is lost abroad but high enough to earn the money needed for services.
I also thought Cameron was getting into some difficulties with this with Evan Davies this morning. If the answer to the cost of living argument is tax cuts for the lower paid just what sort of priority is being given to deficit reduction and just how easily can the tories accuse Labour of irresponsibility? I think the answer to that question is very easily indeed but people in glass house etc.
My position in 2010 was that we needed both tax increases and spending cuts to reduce a very dangerous deficit. I still think that. This emphasis on tax cuts when we are borrowing £100bn+ is sounding a very off note to me. I understand the politics of it: there had to be an an answer to Ed and the cost of living "crisis" but the USP of actually caring about our finances is being lost. Add on to that cuts in welfare and you have an even more difficult package to sell.
Any probs the Tories might have had in fundraising to fight 2015 have prob now been solved. It's also clear there's a clear attack line on Labour available to the Tories very similar to the 1992 bombshell posters.
I imagine Osborne will be desperate to delay interest rate rises until post-election and take other measures to boost disposable income on both the April 2014 and April 2015 budgets to stiffen up the Tory vote and invite back enough UKIP defectors for him to cross the line at 36-37% of the vote.
The bbc,earlier they had a headline why as some tories staying Quiet ,now the new headline is below = lol
Labour 50p tax plan: Why are some people staying quiet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25913781
Noted.
Is there an 'askEd' somewhere?
The headline may not reflect what the public think though, for instance someone may think there is a 5% chance of life on mars and a 45% chance of UKIP winning the Euros but they'd think neither is LIKELY !
It really isn't going to happen. This suggests that Kellner's piece should really be entitled: "Why the Tories will fail to win the next general election - again"
The 33-32 lead on "...started to sort out the welfare system so that benefits go only to those who truly need and deserve the money" against "...unfairly picked on people who need help, but* cutting welfare benefits and imposing such burdens as the ‘bedroom tax’" does not, however, suggest that the country is ready to decisively reject Osborne's war on welfare. So there are also difficulties for the Opposition in the figures.
* I assume "by", and that this typo was not in the survey itself, and that it was it did not put off ~30% of the electorate from selecting that option because they could not find themselves agreeing with something containing a typo...
Not for the first time you make the classic error of applying logic here.
EdB will be high-fiving to hear his 50p wheeze described as spiteful; it makes Lab more electable. Having lost the economic argument there is now only the visceral hatred card to play. And it has every chance of succeeding.
As for Cam, he has to face the competing aims of deficit reduction and being PM in June 2015. The Cons were "brave" to sort-of tell it like it was, pre-2010, even though subsequent actions haven't accorded with that tough talk.
But I fear they will capitulate now in the face of this assault and promise all-sorts, knowing it's re-priming the time bomb that we are tortuously distancing ourselves from (totally lost in that analogy, btw).
Which means after a brief spell of ingenuousness we are back to all parties playing politics. And the country in a worse economic position. Which would be a shame.
(Edited one of your paras to fit it all in)
BBC Newsnight@BBCNewsnight46 mins
Why are some Tories who didn't want 50p tax dropped so quiet now that Labour's pledged to restore it? @maitlis writes http://bbc.in/19X5e7O
BBC Newsnight@BBCNewsnight5 mins
Why are some who opposed 50p tax rate being cut so quiet now Labour's pledged to restore it? @maitlis writes http://bbc.in/19X5e7O
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100256645/how-scott-walker-and-the-conservatives-saved-wisconsin-america-take-note/
Spending cuts > jobs > tax cuts= awesome.
In terms of local council spending, this falls into two categories: (a) mandated expenditure by central government and (b) discretionary spending. Category (a) should be funded by central government - category (b) should be raised locally.