politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » George Osborne moves into the favourite slot at Betfair to succeed Cameron as CON leader
Above are the latest trades on Betfair’s Next CON leader market and as can be seen there is a new favourite – George Osborne. This has probably come out of the recent Michael Gove initiatives which are seen by many as a way of undermining Boris.
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
Osborne learned his lesson when he did a sensible budget with lots of little simplifying tweaks that raised a little bit more money here and there, and it resulted in a polling slump from which his party has never recovered. The voters prefer budgets to be expensive, complicated and give money to people who don't need it.
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
Ferociously complex ?
" Er - hello I earn over £60k and would like to cancel my CB. Ok sir thanks - no need for you to self assess..."
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
Osborne learned his lesson when he did a sensible budget with lots of little simplifying tweaks that raised a little bit more money here and there, and it resulted in a polling slump from which his party has never recovered. The voters prefer budgets to be expensive, complicated and give money to people who don't need it.
But to do it in a way that undermines every argument you've made in the past four years is new, interesting and brave.
The list of Tory hopefuls is depressing. Even Boris has lost his sparkle, which is a pity, as he is the most educated and enlightened one of the bunch.
Meanwhile UKIP marches on: Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 8s UKIP membership has hit a new all-time high again today, the LibLabCon smear campaign seems to be bringing new people to us.
The list of Tory hopefuls is depressing. Even Boris has lost his sparkle, which is a pity, as he is the most educated and enlightened one of the bunch.
Meanwhile UKIP marches on: Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 8s UKIP membership has hit a new all-time high again today, the LibLabCon smear campaign seems to be bringing new people to us.
Why isn't it hitting a new high every day? At some point before today, had people been leaving?
It all depends on the nature of Cameron's departure. If its 'well earned retirement after long years of service' Osborne has an excellent chance. If its 'clambering from the rubble of electoral disaster' he will have taken Osborne down with him.....
@TGOHF - seriously are you actually an accountant?
1. What about those on between £50k and £60k? 2. You haven't accounted for the impact of salary sacrifice. 3. You don't mention the perverse incentives on those who are paying very high marginal rates of tax because of this. 4. The government has created an entirely new tax to claw back the benefit. 5. The system is essentially self certifying. 6. Some eye watering number are not paying the tax, presumably because they still don't know about it. 7. Every accountancy body in the country says the policy is a complete dog.
The list of Tory hopefuls is depressing. Even Boris has lost his sparkle, which is a pity, as he is the most educated and enlightened one of the bunch.
Meanwhile UKIP marches on: Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 8s UKIP membership has hit a new all-time high again today, the LibLabCon smear campaign seems to be bringing new people to us.
Why isn't it hitting a new high every day? At some point before today, had people been leaving?
Sometimes you just cannot desist from being a wanker, can you?
The voters prefer budgets to be expensive, complicated and give money to people who don't need it.
The Sun reports that Osborne has the politics right on this. People want tax reliefs to come right at the bottom, according to a poll they are pushing.
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
This tax relief is only available where both parents work which is different than Child Benefit and the current childcare voucher.
The Sun reports that Osborne has the politics right on this. People want tax reliefs to come right at the bottom, according to a poll they are pushing.
Today's YouGov:
Increase nil-band: 66 Increase 40% threshold: 13
Even in London, the area most in favour of the latter, its still out-voted 2:1, and among Con-VI >3:1
"I'm getting confused. I thought return was calculated on the original capital."
You can calculate either which way round. Either your cashflows tell you how much capital your project can serve, or you work out your return by deducting your hurdle rate from your cashflows, and if it's positive you have made money.
If you take the example of something like a gym, if you can charge 100 annually and 10% of members stay, then you can work out what level of construction cost your expected membership revenues will support. If they discount back to an NPV of 1000, but it costs you only 900 to build the gym, you're in business.
JosiasJessop wrote:
"But surely there's another factor in play there: land availability."
Only to landlords, however. But the landlord lets / leases to whoever will pay the best price, and that in turn is a function of who can put the land to the most profitable use.
The landlord doesn't have to care what gets built; the developer does have to.
Someone mentioned rent reviews - obviously you factor these into your initial economics but if something is simply an expression of expected inflation most economic models would disregard it. It goes in but it comes back out again. Your rents go up but so do your costs.
The fallout from Alex Salmond's heated interview with Andrew Marr has continued as Nationalists were accused of intimidating journalists after the BBC warned its complaints procedure was being skewed by "lobbying".
The presenter was labelled a "self-important little weasel" and a "racist wee s****" in comments on pro-independence online forums after challenging the First Minister over a separate Scotland's European Union membership.
Fears of a Nationalist campaign to bombard the show with complaints surfaced as the BBC refused to reveal the number of people who had registered their dissatisfaction due to "evidence of lobbying".
The fallout from Alex Salmond's heated interview with Andrew Marr has continued as Nationalists were accused of intimidating journalists after the BBC warned its complaints procedure was being skewed by "lobbying".
The presenter was labelled a "self-important little weasel" and a "racist wee s****" in comments on pro-independence online forums after challenging the First Minister over a separate Scotland's European Union membership.
Fears of a Nationalist campaign to bombard the show with complaints surfaced as the BBC refused to reveal the number of people who had registered their dissatisfaction due to "evidence of lobbying".
Higher rate taxpayers will still benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, as well as basic rate payers. So, if there's money to spare, it would be fairer to raise that, rather than just the 40% threshold.
Higher rate taxpayers will still benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, as well as basic rate payers. So, if there's money to spare, it would be fairer to raise that, rather than just the 40% threshold.
Also would not have any affect on those above £100k when you lose the (now larger) personal allowance - so can be portrayed as a 'targetting the squeezed middle' or somesuch.
Higher rate taxpayers will still benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, as well as basic rate payers. So, if there's money to spare, it would be fairer to raise that, rather than just the 40% threshold.
I thought part of the problem was that the 40% threshold has been brought down precisely so that they didn't benefit?
Additional rate tax payers (at 45%) don't get a personal allowance anyway, so definitely don't benefit.
The fallout from Alex Salmond's heated interview with Andrew Marr has continued as Nationalists were accused of intimidating journalists after the BBC warned its complaints procedure was being skewed by "lobbying".
The presenter was labelled a "self-important little weasel" and a "racist wee s****" in comments on pro-independence online forums after challenging the First Minister over a separate Scotland's European Union membership.
Fears of a Nationalist campaign to bombard the show with complaints surfaced as the BBC refused to reveal the number of people who had registered their dissatisfaction due to "evidence of lobbying".
Andrew Neil was far more brutal with Salmond than Marr was, but the Nats fear Neil. However, they sense that Marr is enfeebled following his stroke, so they pile in with their cheap shots. They are scum.
Higher rate taxpayers will still benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, as well as basic rate payers. So, if there's money to spare, it would be fairer to raise that, rather than just the 40% threshold.
I thought part of the problem was that the 40% threshold has been brought down precisely so that they didn't benefit?
Additional rate tax payers (at 45%) don't get a personal allowance anyway, so definitely don't benefit.
Some one elses sums
"Between 2010/11 and 2011/12, the personal allowance increased by £1,000 from £6,475 to £7,475. For a 20% taxpayer, this is worth £200 a year. However, in the same period, the higher rate band dropped from £37,400 to £35,000, a drop of £2,400.
Therefore an additional cost of 20% x £2,400 if you were previously a 20% rate payer now a higher rate payer, which is £480. More than the saving from the personal allowance.
This continues to 2012/13 where the PA increases by £630 ( £126 tax saving) and the 40% threshhold drops by £630 (£126 tax increase, so neutral) and 2013;
and 2013/14 where the PA increases by £1,335 (£267 tax saving) but the 40% threshhold drops by £2,360 (£472 tax cost).
t is only in 2014/15 where the reverse will be true: the PA increases by £560 (£112 tax saving) yet the 40% threshhold drops by just £145 (£29 tax cost)."
@TGOHF - seriously are you actually an accountant?
1. What about those on between £50k and £60k? 2. You haven't accounted for the impact of salary sacrifice. 3. You don't mention the perverse incentives on those who are paying very high marginal rates of tax because of this. 4. The government has created an entirely new tax to claw back the benefit. 5. The system is essentially self certifying. 6. Some eye watering number are not paying the tax, presumably because they still don't know about it. 7. Every accountancy body in the country says the policy is a complete dog.
Simple. Only in your world.
1/2. Yes more complicated for them - suggest they sacrifice salary if on 50-55 if they want to avoid self certifying and paying tax and suck it up above 58k if they don't want to self certify.
3/4. It's not a tax - my takehome pay hasn't been impacted one jot.
5. With a single phone call you can avoid self certifying. If you don't then HMRC are coming for you.
6. Ignorance is no defence - never has been.
7. Indeed scrap CB for new births and replace with a tax allowance.
I'm not sure why "not being in touch with ordinary people" has a one-to-one identity with going to fee-paying schools.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that Blair went to the fee-paying educational establishment known as Fettes, and yet possessed the charisma to score highly on the "in touch with ordinary people" question (though granted, spending most of your years as leader up against Major, Hague, IDS and Howard makes that rather easier).
Boris appears to have the same knack. Philip Hammond, for all his many qualities, simply does not appear as warm a character as Boris, however unfair such a judgement might be.
The other issue with your logic is that you forget that the people who are important in terms of deciding what the reasons were for a Tory defeat are Tory MPs and Tory party members, as these are the people who will determine who will next lead the Conservative Party.
If, for the sake of argument, UKIP receive more than 3 million votes, or 10% of the total, and win a seat or two, then the relevant people could easily conclude that they lost because Cameron wasn't eurosceptic or right-wing enough.
I don't see that having attended a public school would appear to be the decisive factor, given that it hasn't been a problem for Farage.
The Tory members elected IDS in 2001 because Ken Clarke was too much a Europhile. In 2005 they chose Cameron over the state-school educated Davis, one presumes because Cameron was deemed to have the centrist appeal and charisma to win a general election.
For a 2015 vacancy they will choose Boris Johnson if given that option. As twice-elected Mayor of London he is a proven winner. Otherwise, they will go for the most credible ideologically sound candidate - this is likely to be Gove. An election defeat in 2015 breaks Osborne almost as much as it breaks Cameron - particularly as he has failed in his singular task in office of eliminating the deficit.
The Sun reports that Osborne has the politics right on this. People want tax reliefs to come right at the bottom, according to a poll they are pushing.
Today's YouGov:
Increase nil-band: 66 Increase 40% threshold: 13
Even in London, the area most in favour of the latter, its still out-voted 2:1, and among Con-VI >3:1
Of course this may be explained by the fact there are five and a half times as many basic rate tax payers as 40% tax payers (Basic: 24.3m, 40%: 4.4m, 45%: 0.3m)......
Higher rate taxpayers will still benefit from an increase in the personal allowance, as well as basic rate payers. So, if there's money to spare, it would be fairer to raise that, rather than just the 40% threshold.
I thought part of the problem was that the 40% threshold has been brought down precisely so that they didn't benefit?
Additional rate tax payers (at 45%) don't get a personal allowance anyway, so definitely don't benefit.
Some one elses sums
"Between 2010/11 and 2011/12, the personal allowance increased by £1,000 from £6,475 to £7,475. For a 20% taxpayer, this is worth £200 a year. However, in the same period, the higher rate band dropped from £37,400 to £35,000, a drop of £2,400.
Therefore an additional cost of 20% x £2,400 if you were previously a 20% rate payer now a higher rate payer, which is £480. More than the saving from the personal allowance.
This continues to 2012/13 where the PA increases by £630 ( £126 tax saving) and the 40% threshhold drops by £630 (£126 tax increase, so neutral) and 2013;
and 2013/14 where the PA increases by £1,335 (£267 tax saving) but the 40% threshhold drops by £2,360 (£472 tax cost).
t is only in 2014/15 where the reverse will be true: the PA increases by £560 (£112 tax saving) yet the 40% threshhold drops by just £145 (£29 tax cost)."
The Sun reports that Osborne has the politics right on this. People want tax reliefs to come right at the bottom, according to a poll they are pushing.
Today's YouGov:
Increase nil-band: 66 Increase 40% threshold: 13
Even in London, the area most in favour of the latter, its still out-voted 2:1, and among Con-VI >3:1
Of course this may be explained by the fact there are five and a half times as many basic rate tax payers as 40% tax payers (Basic: 24.3m, 40%: 4.4m, 45%: 0.3m)......
It kind of seems like a no brainer to me. In fact I am surprised there are 13% who think it would be better to increase the 40% threshold as opposed to the nil-band.
UKIP membership has hit a new all-time high again today, the LibLabCon smear campaign seems to be bringing new people to us.
The number of people who would rather seethe under a labour government than vote in a referendum in 2017 is clearly growing
They'll REALLY seethe when Ed Miliband puts Nigel Farage on the UK's fifty Euro note....
"....without whom, none of this would have been possible..."
LOL. The delusional Tories who are still daft enough to think that Cameron would ever allow us to withdraw from the EU.
A referendum under Cameron would be as balanced as a North Korean presidential election.
Not even the SNP are whining that the Indyref under Cameron is unfair - they are putting in a shift to try and win it.
Are Ukip threatening not to participate in the referendum ? Operation Sour Grapes ?
Not at all. If you were concerned about anything other than your own personal biased view you would know that I am at best a reluctant UKIP member and certainly don't agree with them on much of their position - including whether or not they should be a real party at all.
Don't for a second think I speak for UKIP. I don't.
My only interest is in getting out of the EU and as I have stated before there is far less chance of that with Cameron leading the Tories - whatever rubbish he might spout about referenda - than there is if he is gone.
My only interest is in getting out of the EU and as I have stated before there is far less chance of that with Cameron leading the Tories - whatever rubbish he might spout about referenda - than there is if he is gone.
In other words, you are projecting onto Cameron personally your fear of a referendum, because you know the Out side will lose.
You are right on the latter point, of course, as I pointed out back in 2009 (and you will owe me £100 if I remember correctly, if the referendum happens). But the idea that this has something to do with Cameron personally is completely crazy; indeed the very people - including yourself - who claim Cameron is a hopeless politician and very unpopular, seem curiously in awe of his magical powers to influence the result of a referendum, in which the question will be: "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
"I'm getting confused. I thought return was calculated on the original capital."
You can calculate either which way round. Either your cashflows tell you how much capital your project can serve, or you work out your return by deducting your hurdle rate from your cashflows, and if it's positive you have made money.
If you take the example of something like a gym, if you can charge 100 annually and 10% of members stay, then you can work out what level of construction cost your expected membership revenues will support. If they discount back to an NPV of 1000, but it costs you only 900 to build the gym, you're in business.
JosiasJessop wrote:
"But surely there's another factor in play there: land availability."
Only to landlords, however. But the landlord lets / leases to whoever will pay the best price, and that in turn is a function of who can put the land to the most profitable use.
The landlord doesn't have to care what gets built; the developer does have to.
Someone mentioned rent reviews - obviously you factor these into your initial economics but if something is simply an expression of expected inflation most economic models would disregard it. It goes in but it comes back out again. Your rents go up but so do your costs.
If Ed gets in the Kippers will spend 5 years moaning at Cameron for denying them a referendum by losing.
... and then repeat exactly the same exercise with Boris, May, Gove, or whoever else replaces him.
The Kippers' problem is not David Cameron, it is that a referendum to leave the EU is unwinnable, as they are clearly beginning to realise. That's why renegotiation is the only viable option for undoing at least some of the daft and unnecessary concessions made by Blair and Brown - but they're not interested in that, just in shooting at their own feet.
My only interest is in getting out of the EU and as I have stated before there is far less chance of that with Cameron leading the Tories - whatever rubbish he might spout about referenda - than there is if he is gone.
In other words, you are projecting onto Cameron personally your fear of a referendum, because you know the Out side will lose.
You are right on the latter point, of course, as I pointed out back in 2009 (and you will owe me £100 if I remember correctly, if the referendum happens). But the idea that this has something to do with Cameron personally is completely crazy; indeed the very people - including yourself - who claim Cameron is a hopeless politician and very unpopular, seem curiously in awe of his magical powers to influence the result of a referendum, in which the question will be: "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
My only interest is in getting out of the EU and as I have stated before there is far less chance of that with Cameron leading the Tories - whatever rubbish he might spout about referenda - than there is if he is gone.
In other words, you are projecting onto Cameron personally your fear of a referendum, because you know the Out side will lose.
You are right on the latter point, of course, as I pointed out back in 2009 (and you will owe me £100 if I remember correctly, if the referendum happens). But the idea that this has something to do with Cameron personally is completely crazy; indeed the very people - including yourself - who claim Cameron is a hopeless politician and very unpopular, seem curiously in awe of his magical powers to influence the result of a referendum, in which the question will be: "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
PS. I have never claimed Cameron was unpopular - well no more than any other politician anyway although to be fair that is a pretty low bar to clear.
If Ed gets in the Kippers will spend 5 years moaning at Cameron for denying them a referendum by losing.
... and then repeat exactly the same exercise with Boris, May, Gove, or whoever else replaces him.
The Kippers' problem is not David Cameron, it is that a referendum to leave the EU is unwinnable, as they are clearly beginning to realise. That's why renegotiation is the only viable option for undoing at least some of the daft and unnecessary concessions made by Blair and Brown - but they're not interested in that, just in shooting at their own feet.
Utter rubbish. A referendum is of course winnable. Renegotiation is what is utterly impossible, unless of course you believe Cameron has some mystical power to be able to guarantee ratification by another 27 legislatures. Given that half the time he can't even control his own Parliament I wonder how exactly you imagine he will achieve this mystical feat?
'Are Ukip threatening not to participate in the referendum ? Operation Sour Grapes ?'
What's the purpose of UKIP after we've had a referendum? Plus Farage & co want a few more years of the Brussels gravy train.
Who cares? The best thing they could do after a successful referendum - given that they are not going to evolve into a proper Libertarian party - would be to simply disappear.
What matters is leaving the EU. UKIP are nothing more than a tool to achieve that.
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you might be right that there will be no substantive concessions. And yes, you might be right that he will 'lie', as you call it, i.e. present the Stay In case in as positive a light as possible. So what?
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
Of course, that wouldn't in itself matter - except it seems likely to give us the disaster of PM Miliband - the worst of all possible worlds for anyone leaning towards UKIP.
If Ed gets in the Kippers will spend 5 years moaning at Cameron for denying them a referendum by losing.
... and then repeat exactly the same exercise with Boris, May, Gove, or whoever else replaces him.
The Kippers' problem is not David Cameron, it is that a referendum to leave the EU is unwinnable, as they are clearly beginning to realise. That's why renegotiation is the only viable option for undoing at least some of the daft and unnecessary concessions made by Blair and Brown - but they're not interested in that, just in shooting at their own feet.
I'm not convinced that a referendum on exit is unwinnable. And I come from a broadly pro-European perspective. The ground that has been laid by the printed media gives a very solid base for an exit campaign. It's the extent to which that media would hold the line in the event of a concerted campaign by business leaders and the city to stay in. It's high stakes and I'm not sure Cameron is holding aces.
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you might be right that there will be no substantive concessions. And yes, you might be right that he will 'lie', as you call it, i.e. present the Stay In case in as positive a light as possible. So what?
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
LOL. So you accept all my points and then resort to a personal insult as your only answer.
Methinks you are finding it more and more difficult to reconcile your support for Cameron's position with any form of logic.
I'm not convinced that a referendum on exit is unwinnable. And I come from a broadly pro-European perspective. The ground that has been laid by the printed media gives a very solid base for an exit campaign. It's the extent to which that media would hold the line in the event of a concerted campaign by business leaders and the city to stay in. It's high stakes and I'm not sure Cameron is holding aces.
If you are right - and you may be - or even if there is just the possibility that you might be right, then UKIP should not fight the next GE but should urge its followers to vote Tory to get the referendum, and reorganise themselves into a really effective Out campaign. It's the only chance they're going to get in a generation.
I'm not convinced that a referendum on exit is unwinnable. And I come from a broadly pro-European perspective. The ground that has been laid by the printed media gives a very solid base for an exit campaign. It's the extent to which that media would hold the line in the event of a concerted campaign by business leaders and the city to stay in. It's high stakes and I'm not sure Cameron is holding aces.
If you are right - and you may be - or even if there is just the possibility that you might be right, then UKIP should not fight the next GE but should urge its followers to vote Tory to get the referendum, and reorganise themselves into a really effective Out campaign. It's the only chance they're going to get in a generation.
Why? Are you so convinced that Cameron is the Saviour of all things British that without him there could not be a referendum?
Blind party fanaticism like yours is rather disturbing.
Right now, it seems more likely than not that there will be a vacancy at the top of the Conservative party in 2015 owing to lack of electoral success. A punt on George Osborne is a punt on the opposite, that the Conservatives retain power and the party in due course rewards the Chancellor that made it possible. That probably is an 18% probability, but you have to take into account the time element also.
If there's a battle in 2015, Boris Johnson will find a way of standing. It's evident that he wants to stand and he's unignorable, so he will be allowed to stand. He's worth backing even at these odds as a trading bet: I don't expect him to win.
The Conservatives would be picking a leader of the Opposition, so they'd want someone to campaign vigorously. That should rule out Philip Hammond, who is just too safe and dull. Theresa May is, however, a serious possibility. But there may yet be outsiders with a decent shot. A dynamic reliable Eurosceptic might come through the field. If one can be found.
Michael Gove would only be chosen if the Conservatives wanted to pull the duvet over their heads and ignore electoral realities. In practice, he seems too self-aware even to stand.
Methinks you are finding it more and more difficult to reconcile your support for Cameron's position with any form of logic.
The true sign of a party fanatic.
Eh? I'm certainly not a party fanatic, and I've always accepted that Cameron's position is optimistic. I've repeated again and again that it's going to be incredibly hard to renegotiate. I've also said that I think he's got the timescale wrong.
But we are where we are. We shouldn't have started from here, but the fools who ran the country from 1997 to 2010 made some absolutely idiotic concessions, for nothing in return, and tied us into a treaty which is incredibly hard to correct. Cameron at least is trying; he may or may not succeed to any great extent, we shall see.
Your position is utterly barmy, arguing that he won't succeed (that bit's not barmy, you might well be right), and that therefore you don't want the opportunity of us getting Out altogether (that's the barmy bit). If he doesn't succeed in getting much, that's BETTER from your point of view; as Dan Hannan keeps trying to point out, you'll still get the referendum.
The other barmy bit of the Kipper position is that they seem to working principally to put Ed Miliband and the arch Europhiles back into power.
My position is that I'll wait and see what concessions Cameron gets. If none - in particular, if the City looks to be at risk - I'll vote to leave the EU. But, whatever I personally vote for, I don't think the result will be anything other than to stay in.
I'm not convinced that a referendum on exit is unwinnable. And I come from a broadly pro-European perspective. The ground that has been laid by the printed media gives a very solid base for an exit campaign. It's the extent to which that media would hold the line in the event of a concerted campaign by business leaders and the city to stay in. It's high stakes and I'm not sure Cameron is holding aces.
If you are right - and you may be - or even if there is just the possibility that you might be right, then UKIP should not fight the next GE but should urge its followers to vote Tory to get the referendum, and reorganise themselves into a really effective Out campaign. It's the only chance they're going to get in a generation.
Why? Are you so convinced that Cameron is the Saviour of all things British that without him there could not be a referendum?
Blind party fanaticism like yours is rather disturbing.
Look on a Cons victory and the referendum as a free option.
If Cam wins and doesn't get concessions then organise an OUT vote. If he wins and does get concessions then organise an OUT vote.
Because then you will have done your duty to abide by the will of the people. Unless you want to override the public's will (and although not a referendum fan I think one on the EU is right) and just decide to leave.
Because that would surely be undemocratic (assuming no Kipper OM at GE2015)?
If Cameron loses Osborne loses. His only way to success is to deliver a somewhat unlikely election victory starting tomorrow.
If Cameron loses then I think Hammond loses too. He is not a leader of the opposition. In the early days of the Coalition he was a bit of a star and I suspect he would have made a good chief secretary to the Treasury but he has not shone in defence and very few tories are likely to be happy with what has happened to our armed forces on his watch (not his fault but that's politics).
If Cameron loses Boris is outside Parliament when the election happens. He would be a formidible candidate but that is far too much of a disadvantage.
If Cameron loses May wins. It is a process of elimination really.
If Cameron wins Osborne may well win but that could be problematic for any number of reasons.
I notice OGH makes no mention of Milibland the reincarnation of Michael Foot. Budget day tomorrow and Osborne should be making the news unless NPXMP has inside knowledge and knows there will be something about the missing plane.
For what it's worth, neither Boris nor Osborne will be next Tory leader if David Cameron's successor remains a contestant for the role of PM of the UK rather than rUK. The further out of the M25 one travels, the less either is regarded. In Scotland and the North, Boris is seen as a blond buffoon who has insulted too many communities to ever be widely accepted and George tends to sneer too much.
I would be looking for a polished performing outsider as next Tory leader, someone like May or Hammond though I reckon the next Tory leader (barring disasters) wont be getting elected until around 2021.
If Cameron loses May wins. It is a process of elimination really.
Your logic is good except that there's always the possibility of someone who is younger and not currently on the radar; that has historically been the case quite often in Conservative Party elections - Cameron is one good example.
If Cameron loses May wins. It is a process of elimination really.
Your logic is good except that there's always the possibility of someone who is younger and not currently on the radar; that has historically been the case quite often in Conservative Party elections - Cameron is one good example.
Also I wouldn't rule out Jeremy Hunt.
I agree with Hunt.
Being Secretary of State for Health in a tory government is usually worse than being Home Secretary but he has done a brilliant job of bringing in Lansley's reforms without all the fuss and noise.
The winter has gone remarkably quietly and he has done excellent work in making the Care Quality Commission an organisation interested in patient welfare rather than specialising in the gold stars of its previous incarnation. The focus on the cover ups and poor practice of the past has been relentless and ultimately telling on Burnham whose profile has collapsed.
Keeping a difficult area quiet is one of the underrated skills of politics. Darling used to have it in spades. I am just not sure it is quite a front office trait. In office, yes. In opposition? Not so sure.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
'Are Ukip threatening not to participate in the referendum ? Operation Sour Grapes ?'
What's the purpose of UKIP after we've had a referendum? Plus Farage & co want a few more years of the Brussels gravy train.
Who cares? The best thing they could do after a successful referendum - given that they are not going to evolve into a proper Libertarian party - would be to simply disappear.
What matters is leaving the EU. UKIP are nothing more than a tool to achieve that.
You aren't convinced by the incompetent fops Cast Iron Pledges? Disgraceful! How on earth can you possibly doubt Cameron's word? Just because gullible tory Eurosceptics have been fooled one or twice, or three, or four, okay fine... a half dozen or so times already, doesn't mean he can't be trusted now. Next thing you'll be trying to doubt his word on his Cast Iron immigration Pledge and how foolish would you look for not trusting that?
@TGOHF - thanks for the response, it was quite good, but recognise that it IS a tax - even the government says it is: it's called that Child Benefit Tax (yes really).
Re: tax generally - isn't the issue that more and more people are getting pulled into the 40p rate via fiscal drag? In Lawson's day only 1 in 20 paid the Higher Rate. Now it's 1 in 6. Higher Rate payers are not rich, especially down here.
@TGOHF - thanks for the response, it was quite good, but recognise that it IS a tax - even the government says it is: it's called that Child Benefit Tax (yes really).
Re: tax generally - isn't the issue that more and more people are getting pulled into the 40p rate via fiscal drag? In Lawson's day only 1 in 20 paid the Higher Rate. Now it's 1 in 6. Higher Rate payers are not rich, especially down here.
Rich Londoners mate. You all like paying top whack George says so, it's like having a Porsche. Now get back to work, us bumpkins have a lifestyle to be paid for you know.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
Surely the more people vote UKIP, the morely likely they'll get elected?
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
What does UKIP want? It want's power. Power to really change things here in Britain. It won't happen at the next GE but the party will make huge advances. It may happen in 2020, or sooner if the next government abolish the 5 year nonsense and return to more dynamic politics. However long it takes its worth the effort. The Tories and Labour are clearly worn out parties that have no idea or intention to reinvent themselves. The L/Dems only think of themselves and how wonderful to bask in the EU wonderland. Unlike Richard_Tyndall who only worries about the EU, UKIP worries about Britain.
Keeping a difficult area quiet is one of the underrated skills of politics. Darling used to have it in spades. I am just not sure it is quite a front office trait. In office, yes. In opposition? Not so sure.
As you imply in the previous paragraph, Hunt has done more than keep things quiet; he's actually been rather good at attacking Labour on its home ground of health. Having been effectively ruled out as finished by many (including me) a few years ago, he's bounced back in a very feisty way. It has been a pleasant surprise.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
The aim of UKIP is to replace the Conservative Party, not to assist it to hold on to power.
Keeping a difficult area quiet is one of the underrated skills of politics. Darling used to have it in spades. I am just not sure it is quite a front office trait. In office, yes. In opposition? Not so sure.
As you imply in the previous paragraph, Hunt has done more than keep things quiet; he's actually been rather good at attacking Labour on its home ground of health. Having been effectively ruled out as finished by many (including me) a few years ago, he's bounced back in a very feisty way. It has been a pleasant surprise.
Yes, one of the more effective ministers and he's grown into the job.
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you might be right that there will be no substantive concessions. And yes, you might be right that he will 'lie', as you call it, i.e. present the Stay In case in as positive a light as possible. So what?
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
Of course, that wouldn't in itself matter - except it seems likely to give us the disaster of PM Miliband - the worst of all possible worlds for anyone leaning towards UKIP.
We're aiming to win. We're not aiming to be a Conservative Party pressure group.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
What does UKIP want? It want's power. Power to really change things here in Britain. It won't happen at the next GE but the party will make huge advances. It may happen in 2020, or sooner if the next government abolish the 5 year nonsense and return to more dynamic politics. However long it takes its worth the effort. The Tories and Labour are clearly worn out parties that have no idea or intention to reinvent themselves. The L/Dems only think of themselves and how wonderful to bask in the EU wonderland. Unlike Richard_Tyndall who only worries about the EU, UKIP worries about Britain.
Aside from the EU, what else have you got? What exactly is the UKIP vision for Britain?
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you might be right that there will be no substantive concessions. And yes, you might be right that he will 'lie', as you call it, i.e. present the Stay In case in as positive a light as possible. So what?
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
Of course, that wouldn't in itself matter - except it seems likely to give us the disaster of PM Miliband - the worst of all possible worlds for anyone leaning towards UKIP.
We're aiming to win. We're not aiming to be a Conservative Party pressure group.
well at least that's a change from the last 10 years.
If you want a charismatic leader to get the country through tough times whilst making waves then Boris is your man.
If the deficit has been eliminated (but not the debt of course) and things are more 'steady as she goes' then Hammond is the best administrator and conciliator.
We're aiming to win. We're not aiming to be a Conservative Party pressure group.
Irrespective of what you think you are aiming at, you are pointing the gun at your feet: what you are doing is leading the country towards a Labour government, the disaster of Miliband as PM, and in the precise opposite direction of everything you claim to want including, most notably, progress on the EU.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
What does UKIP want? It want's power. Power to really change things here in Britain. It won't happen at the next GE but the party will make huge advances. It may happen in 2020, or sooner if the next government abolish the 5 year nonsense and return to more dynamic politics. However long it takes its worth the effort. The Tories and Labour are clearly worn out parties that have no idea or intention to reinvent themselves. The L/Dems only think of themselves and how wonderful to bask in the EU wonderland. Unlike Richard_Tyndall who only worries about the EU, UKIP worries about Britain.
Nobody in UKIP will still be alive for the GE after the one in 2020.
We're aiming to win. We're not aiming to be a Conservative Party pressure group.
Irrespective of what you think you are aiming at, you are pointing the gun at your feet: what you are doing is leading the country towards a Labour government, the disaster of Miliband as PM, and in the precise opposite direction of everything you claim to want including, most notably, progress on the EU.
Surely the more people vote UKIP, the morely likely they'll get elected?
No. It is absolutely the case in my opinion that Cameron cannot and will not come back with substantive changes to the EU which would be sufficient to persuade people we should stay in. that part of the equation actually has very little to do with Cameron and everything to do with the nature of the EU.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you might be right that there will be no substantive concessions. And yes, you might be right that he will 'lie', as you call it, i.e. present the Stay In case in as positive a light as possible. So what?
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
Of course, that wouldn't in itself matter - except it seems likely to give us the disaster of PM Miliband - the worst of all possible worlds for anyone leaning towards UKIP.
We're aiming to win. We're not aiming to be a Conservative Party pressure group.
You won't win unless you convince people like me over. And UKIP are utterly failing to do that. I should be fertile ground for UKIP. Instead, there is an incoherent negative argument, and personalities who inspire active loathing more than most politicians of other parties.
I'd love to be able to vote UKIP - I don't really want to vote for Lansley in 2015. But, at the moment at least, I cannot.
George Eustice would be a long shot, partly because he has a marginal seat. But he is the type of person the Tories should be going for. Theresa May is too old and Osbourne will be seen to be part of Camerons failure. Philip Hammond is too boring. Forget Boris Johnson, as I doing think people see him as a sensible candidate for PM.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
What does UKIP want? It want's power. Power to really change things here in Britain. It won't happen at the next GE but the party will make huge advances. It may happen in 2020, or sooner if the next government abolish the 5 year nonsense and return to more dynamic politics. However long it takes its worth the effort. The Tories and Labour are clearly worn out parties that have no idea or intention to reinvent themselves. The L/Dems only think of themselves and how wonderful to bask in the EU wonderland. Unlike Richard_Tyndall who only worries about the EU, UKIP worries about Britain.
Nobody in UKIP will still be alive for the GE after the one in 2020.
It's the Conservative Party, not UKIP, that's dying on its feet. At the current rate of attrition, there won't actually *be* any Conservative members in seven years' time.
Why can't Kippers just admit that voting for them increases the chances of a Europhile MP being elected. For goodness sake in 2010 in the South-west, the LibDem over Tory majority was smaller than the UKIP vote in 5 out of the 10 seats they won. Vote UKIP and get a rampant pro EU Europhile Labour or LibDem MP.
The European elections in the Uk are based on the d'Hondt system. This means that votes are not wasted and voting for a party helps that party and no other party. Former Conservatives voting UKIP in the European elections will not mean Labour wins by default. It means UKIP get more MEPs.
Comments
Posh Boys never lose it!
Posh Boys never chose this way!
Posh Boys never close your eyes!
Posh Boys always shine!
All good fun.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/03/sayeeda-warsi-has-her-hazel-blears-moment.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10705108/Tories-are-in-open-warfare-over-their-Eton-mess.html
Tories bet the house on a childcare giveaway - but how does it differ from the existing tax break with childcare vouchers? Also, why cut CB in ferociously complex manner only to give the money back with this?
" Er - hello I earn over £60k and would like to cancel my CB. Ok sir thanks - no need for you to self assess..."
Was as simple as that.
Meanwhile UKIP marches on:
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 8s
UKIP membership has hit a new all-time high again today, the LibLabCon smear campaign seems to be bringing new people to us.
The number of people who would rather seethe under a labour government than vote in a referendum in 2017 is clearly growing
1. What about those on between £50k and £60k?
2. You haven't accounted for the impact of salary sacrifice.
3. You don't mention the perverse incentives on those who are paying very high marginal rates of tax because of this.
4. The government has created an entirely new tax to claw back the benefit.
5. The system is essentially self certifying.
6. Some eye watering number are not paying the tax, presumably because they still don't know about it.
7. Every accountancy body in the country says the policy is a complete dog.
Simple. Only in your world.
The Sun reports that Osborne has the politics right on this. People want tax reliefs to come right at the bottom, according to a poll they are pushing.
This tax relief is only available where both parents work which is different than Child Benefit and the current childcare voucher.
Increase nil-band: 66
Increase 40% threshold: 13
Even in London, the area most in favour of the latter, its still out-voted 2:1, and among Con-VI >3:1
In which case it's worse the existing system?
Carnyx wrote
"I'm getting confused. I thought return was calculated on the original capital."
You can calculate either which way round. Either your cashflows tell you how much capital your project can serve, or you work out your return by deducting your hurdle rate from your cashflows, and if it's positive you have made money.
If you take the example of something like a gym, if you can charge 100 annually and 10% of members stay, then you can work out what level of construction cost your expected membership revenues will support. If they discount back to an NPV of 1000, but it costs you only 900 to build the gym, you're in business.
JosiasJessop wrote:
"But surely there's another factor in play there: land availability."
Only to landlords, however. But the landlord lets / leases to whoever will pay the best price, and that in turn is a function of who can put the land to the most profitable use.
The landlord doesn't have to care what gets built; the developer does have to.
Someone mentioned rent reviews - obviously you factor these into your initial economics but if something is simply an expression of expected inflation most economic models would disregard it. It goes in but it comes back out again. Your rents go up but so do your costs.
The presenter was labelled a "self-important little weasel" and a "racist wee s****" in comments on pro-independence online forums after challenging the First Minister over a separate Scotland's European Union membership.
Fears of a Nationalist campaign to bombard the show with complaints surfaced as the BBC refused to reveal the number of people who had registered their dissatisfaction due to "evidence of lobbying".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10704063/Cybernats-Andrew-Marr-called-self-important-little-weasel-after-independence-comments.html
Such charmers!
I can't quite work out how this works.
With a referenedum you might, y'know, actually lose
Or even get what you want, which would of course be even worse. Much better to sit on the sidelines, bellowing complaints.
Additional rate tax payers (at 45%) don't get a personal allowance anyway, so definitely don't benefit.
"Between 2010/11 and 2011/12, the personal allowance increased by £1,000 from £6,475 to £7,475. For a 20% taxpayer, this is worth £200 a year. However, in the same period, the higher rate band dropped from £37,400 to £35,000, a drop of £2,400.
Therefore an additional cost of 20% x £2,400 if you were previously a 20% rate payer now a higher rate payer, which is £480. More than the saving from the personal allowance.
This continues to 2012/13 where the PA increases by £630 ( £126 tax saving) and the 40% threshhold drops by £630 (£126 tax increase, so neutral) and 2013;
and 2013/14 where the PA increases by £1,335 (£267 tax saving) but the 40% threshhold drops by £2,360 (£472 tax cost).
t is only in 2014/15 where the reverse will be true: the PA increases by £560 (£112 tax saving) yet the 40% threshhold drops by just £145 (£29 tax cost)."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/budget-more-osborne-sham-pledges?commentpage=2
That is a disgraceful slur, even by your dismal standards.
3/4. It's not a tax - my takehome pay hasn't been impacted one jot.
5. With a single phone call you can avoid self certifying. If you don't then HMRC are coming for you.
6. Ignorance is no defence - never has been.
7. Indeed scrap CB for new births and replace with a tax allowance.
PS not an accountant - a simple soul
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that Blair went to the fee-paying educational establishment known as Fettes, and yet possessed the charisma to score highly on the "in touch with ordinary people" question (though granted, spending most of your years as leader up against Major, Hague, IDS and Howard makes that rather easier).
Boris appears to have the same knack. Philip Hammond, for all his many qualities, simply does not appear as warm a character as Boris, however unfair such a judgement might be.
The other issue with your logic is that you forget that the people who are important in terms of deciding what the reasons were for a Tory defeat are Tory MPs and Tory party members, as these are the people who will determine who will next lead the Conservative Party.
If, for the sake of argument, UKIP receive more than 3 million votes, or 10% of the total, and win a seat or two, then the relevant people could easily conclude that they lost because Cameron wasn't eurosceptic or right-wing enough.
I don't see that having attended a public school would appear to be the decisive factor, given that it hasn't been a problem for Farage.
The Tory members elected IDS in 2001 because Ken Clarke was too much a Europhile. In 2005 they chose Cameron over the state-school educated Davis, one presumes because Cameron was deemed to have the centrist appeal and charisma to win a general election.
For a 2015 vacancy they will choose Boris Johnson if given that option. As twice-elected Mayor of London he is a proven winner. Otherwise, they will go for the most credible ideologically sound candidate - this is likely to be Gove. An election defeat in 2015 breaks Osborne almost as much as it breaks Cameron - particularly as he has failed in his singular task in office of eliminating the deficit.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9157741/israelis-dont-care-that-we-hate-them-but-theyd-like-to-know-why/
"....without whom, none of this would have been possible..."
A referendum under Cameron would be as balanced as a North Korean presidential election.
Interesting politics.
For me the term 'au pair' dredges up memories of distinctly off-colour jokes that all start with the phrase 'mummy, mummy...
Are Ukip threatening not to participate in the referendum ? Operation Sour Grapes ?
Don't for a second think I speak for UKIP. I don't.
My only interest is in getting out of the EU and as I have stated before there is far less chance of that with Cameron leading the Tories - whatever rubbish he might spout about referenda - than there is if he is gone.
You could hold it with Nigel Farage's face printed on the ballot paper, and it still wouldn't be good enough for kippers.
Many don't want a referendum, they just want a moan. Their problem with Cameron is that they haven't been able to moan and holler nearly enough.
Let's get Milli in so we can moan and holler properly.
You are right on the latter point, of course, as I pointed out back in 2009 (and you will owe me £100 if I remember correctly, if the referendum happens). But the idea that this has something to do with Cameron personally is completely crazy; indeed the very people - including yourself - who claim Cameron is a hopeless politician and very unpopular, seem curiously in awe of his magical powers to influence the result of a referendum, in which the question will be: "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”
'Are Ukip threatening not to participate in the referendum ? Operation Sour Grapes ?'
What's the purpose of UKIP after we've had a referendum?
Plus Farage & co want a few more years of the Brussels gravy train.
The Kippers' problem is not David Cameron, it is that a referendum to leave the EU is unwinnable, as they are clearly beginning to realise. That's why renegotiation is the only viable option for undoing at least some of the daft and unnecessary concessions made by Blair and Brown - but they're not interested in that, just in shooting at their own feet.
He also has a timeline that means that even if he does appear to have substantive changes agreed they will be meaningless because they will not have been ratified by any treaty and so would not be worth the paper they are written on. That is to a large extent his fault as he has devised an unrealistic timescale for these negotiations and then has hardly even started down the road with them
And finally it is obvious that since he has stated on numerous occasions he would never support the UK withdrawing from the EU, when he fails to achieve the concessions he wants he will then do all he can to pretend he has substantive agreement - in effect he will lie - to make sure the vote goes the right way for him.
With Cameron in charge Out will almost certainly lose because when it comes to the EU he is fundamentally dishonest.
The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave. Realistically nothing else is on offer.
And yes I have not forgotten our bet. :-)
What matters is leaving the EU. UKIP are nothing more than a tool to achieve that.
And you might be right that "The only honest question to ask would be whether the British people want to remain within the EU as it is with continual moves to ever closer union or whether they wish to leave". So what? The question which will be asked is going to be a straight In/Out: we even know the wording "“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”. Hardly dishonest or slanted, is it?
Frit. That's what the Kippers are - and rightly so.
Of course, that wouldn't in itself matter - except it seems likely to give us the disaster of PM Miliband - the worst of all possible worlds for anyone leaning towards UKIP.
Methinks you are finding it more and more difficult to reconcile your support for Cameron's position with any form of logic.
The true sign of a party fanatic.
Blind party fanaticism like yours is rather disturbing.
Before answering who, we have to decide when.
Right now, it seems more likely than not that there will be a vacancy at the top of the Conservative party in 2015 owing to lack of electoral success. A punt on George Osborne is a punt on the opposite, that the Conservatives retain power and the party in due course rewards the Chancellor that made it possible. That probably is an 18% probability, but you have to take into account the time element also.
If there's a battle in 2015, Boris Johnson will find a way of standing. It's evident that he wants to stand and he's unignorable, so he will be allowed to stand. He's worth backing even at these odds as a trading bet: I don't expect him to win.
The Conservatives would be picking a leader of the Opposition, so they'd want someone to campaign vigorously. That should rule out Philip Hammond, who is just too safe and dull. Theresa May is, however, a serious possibility. But there may yet be outsiders with a decent shot. A dynamic reliable Eurosceptic might come through the field. If one can be found.
Michael Gove would only be chosen if the Conservatives wanted to pull the duvet over their heads and ignore electoral realities. In practice, he seems too self-aware even to stand.
But we are where we are. We shouldn't have started from here, but the fools who ran the country from 1997 to 2010 made some absolutely idiotic concessions, for nothing in return, and tied us into a treaty which is incredibly hard to correct. Cameron at least is trying; he may or may not succeed to any great extent, we shall see.
Your position is utterly barmy, arguing that he won't succeed (that bit's not barmy, you might well be right), and that therefore you don't want the opportunity of us getting Out altogether (that's the barmy bit). If he doesn't succeed in getting much, that's BETTER from your point of view; as Dan Hannan keeps trying to point out, you'll still get the referendum.
The other barmy bit of the Kipper position is that they seem to working principally to put Ed Miliband and the arch Europhiles back into power.
My position is that I'll wait and see what concessions Cameron gets. If none - in particular, if the City looks to be at risk - I'll vote to leave the EU. But, whatever I personally vote for, I don't think the result will be anything other than to stay in.
If Cam wins and doesn't get concessions then organise an OUT vote. If he wins and does get concessions then organise an OUT vote.
Because then you will have done your duty to abide by the will of the people. Unless you want to override the public's will (and although not a referendum fan I think one on the EU is right) and just decide to leave.
Because that would surely be undemocratic (assuming no Kipper OM at GE2015)?
If Cameron loses then I think Hammond loses too. He is not a leader of the opposition. In the early days of the Coalition he was a bit of a star and I suspect he would have made a good chief secretary to the Treasury but he has not shone in defence and very few tories are likely to be happy with what has happened to our armed forces on his watch (not his fault but that's politics).
If Cameron loses Boris is outside Parliament when the election happens. He would be a formidible candidate but that is far too much of a disadvantage.
If Cameron loses May wins. It is a process of elimination really.
If Cameron wins Osborne may well win but that could be problematic for any number of reasons.
For what it's worth, neither Boris nor Osborne will be next Tory leader if David Cameron's successor remains a contestant for the role of PM of the UK rather than rUK. The further out of the M25 one travels, the less either is regarded. In Scotland and the North, Boris is seen as a blond buffoon who has insulted too many communities to ever be widely accepted and George tends to sneer too much.
I would be looking for a polished performing outsider as next Tory leader, someone like May or Hammond though I reckon the next Tory leader (barring disasters) wont be getting elected until around 2021.
Also I wouldn't rule out Jeremy Hunt.
At least it's not death threats or maliciously revealing family details. Oh that's right, they have done. More than once revealingly enough.
Being Secretary of State for Health in a tory government is usually worse than being Home Secretary but he has done a brilliant job of bringing in Lansley's reforms without all the fuss and noise.
The winter has gone remarkably quietly and he has done excellent work in making the Care Quality Commission an organisation interested in patient welfare rather than specialising in the gold stars of its previous incarnation. The focus on the cover ups and poor practice of the past has been relentless and ultimately telling on Burnham whose profile has collapsed.
Keeping a difficult area quiet is one of the underrated skills of politics. Darling used to have it in spades. I am just not sure it is quite a front office trait. In office, yes. In opposition? Not so sure.
twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/statuses/445950077128159233
Exactly.
Re: tax generally - isn't the issue that more and more people are getting pulled into the 40p rate via fiscal drag? In Lawson's day only 1 in 20 paid the Higher Rate. Now it's 1 in 6. Higher Rate payers are not rich, especially down here.
If the deficit has been eliminated (but not the debt of course) and things are more 'steady as she goes' then Hammond is the best administrator and conciliator.
I should be fertile ground for UKIP. Instead, there is an incoherent negative argument, and personalities who inspire active loathing more than most politicians of other parties.
I'd love to be able to vote UKIP - I don't really want to vote for Lansley in 2015. But, at the moment at least, I cannot.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100264120/banging-on-about-eton-is-a-conservative-gift-to-ed-miliband-and-nigel-farage/
Cream rises to the top inexorably.
No wonder Mr. Brooke likes his coffee black.
The European elections in the Uk are based on the d'Hondt system. This means that votes are not wasted and voting for a party helps that party and no other party. Former Conservatives voting UKIP in the European elections will not mean Labour wins by default. It means UKIP get more MEPs.