Mr. Llama, without reading the article (to see if I guess right) presumably that's because the infected survive longer and have more time to infect others?
Millions of electricity customers will see an average reduction of £12 a year on their bills, according to proposals from the regulator, Ofgem.
From April 2015 it plans to limit the prices that can be charged by Britain's six distribution companies, which carry power to homes and businesses.
The curbs will affect 29 million English, Scottish and Welsh customers.
Ofgem's plans will also see the distribution companies spend £17bn to upgrade their networks.
The distribution element makes up about 8% of a typical electricity bill and is the only part directly controlled by Ofgem.
"Today's announcement is all part of Ofgem's consistent drive to get the best deal for consumers, while maintaining a stable regulatory regime which attracts investment as cheaply as possible," said Dermot Nolan, the regulator's chief executive.
Five out of the six network companies - UK Power Networks, Northern Power Grid, SP Energy Networks, SSE Power Distribution and Electricity North West - were ordered to cut their prices.
Only one, Western Power Distribution, had its pricing and investment plans approved by Ofgem.
The new prices will apply for eight years, from April 2015 until 2023.
OOOh cannot wait , what will I spend my £12 on. Out of £1500 who gives a hoot about £12 a year, cosmetic tinkering to try and keep the Tories pals coining it in.
For most people 12 Great British Pounds are a lot of money.
Good article by Farage on the phony immigration crackdown. Great points about the cost of in work benefits, infrastructure and housing our unwanted guests from the rest of the world impose on us.
Bollocks, £1 per month will make no difference to any person in Britain. Even if it were per month it would be zero impact.
I've always said, look at the general trend of polling.
In Westminster VI Polls, Labour will be the largest party/have a majority on current polling and have bet accordingly, but that's a different position from two years ago, when Labour had double digit leads.
On the Indyref all the polls show No winning if the referendum was this Thursday, but the trend generally has been a narrowing of No's lead over the last two years.
I suspect time will run out for Yes this time to overhaul that lead.
I've not commented on Scotland and I won't now.
As far as Westminster is concerned, we has the London poll on Monday with the split 45-35-8-8. Now those numbers mask what is really going on and fortunately we have the London local election data as a backup.
The LDs currently have seven seats in London - on the straight line UNS figures you'd expect them to be wiped out but looking at the local election data tells a different story. Even a prominent Carshalton Tory who posts on here has conceded that Tom Brake will survive and I suspect Paul Burstow will as well and with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable it's a case of how strong the personal vote might or might not be.
The Conservatives could lose ten seats if Labour's strong performance in the local contests is mirrored next May.
I'm quite bullish on the Lib Dems holding their seats.
My expectation the further down South the country you go the stronger the Lib Dem performance
As I have chastised people for denying the polling, I said the same when The Lord Oakeshott poll showed Vince losing Twickers
Good for Bolt, telling it how it is. Any sporting event that doesn't have any Yanks, Chinese, Russians, Germans and French is by its very nature going to look a bit more like a school sports day....
And that point is equally applicable wherever the Commonwealth Games is hosted. Although no doubt our Scottish friends will take it as a personal insult against their fair city of Glasgow. And their Scottie dogs.
The standard of play won't generally be at Olympic level but are a few exceptions. The Kenyans in the middle distance running for example. And I'm sure the rugby sevens will be world standard with all the best teams competing.
Some years the World Athletics Championships don't measure up to the Olympics.
If his view is to denigrate other athletes he is an arse. If he actually said that he should be ashamed and is not worthy of any respect. Often the Olympics are crap as well.
Ebola: apparently a chap's being tested in Hong Kong.
The sort-of city-state is, of course, immensely densely populated.
I'm surprised the outbreak isn't getting more coverage given it's up to 90% mortality rate and high degree of infectiousness, particularly compared with SARS and the like, which was wildly overblown.
It's getting quite a lot of coverage, including the front pages of today's Telegraph and Mirror.
I've always said, look at the general trend of polling.
In Westminster VI Polls, Labour will be the largest party/have a majority on current polling and have bet accordingly, but that's a different position from two years ago, when Labour had double digit leads.
On the Indyref all the polls show No winning if the referendum was this Thursday, but the trend generally has been a narrowing of No's lead over the last two years.
I suspect time will run out for Yes this time to overhaul that lead.
I've not commented on Scotland and I won't now.
As far as Westminster is concerned, we has the London poll on Monday with the split 45-35-8-8. Now those numbers mask what is really going on and fortunately we have the London local election data as a backup.
The LDs currently have seven seats in London - on the straight line UNS figures you'd expect them to be wiped out but looking at the local election data tells a different story. Even a prominent Carshalton Tory who posts on here has conceded that Tom Brake will survive and I suspect Paul Burstow will as well and with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable it's a case of how strong the personal vote might or might not be.
The Conservatives could lose ten seats if Labour's strong performance in the local contests is mirrored next May.
I'm quite bullish on the Lib Dems holding their seats.
My expectation the further down South the country you go the stronger the Lib Dem performance
As I have chastised people for denying the polling, I said the same when The Lord Oakeshott poll showed Vince losing Twickers
96% book on the Tories and Lib Dems in Torbay currently
Mr. Llama, without reading the article (to see if I guess right) presumably that's because the infected survive longer and have more time to infect others?
That is the idea. Apparently Ebola normally kills people before they can pass on the infection to more than one other person (on average).
I've always said, look at the general trend of polling.
In Westminster VI Polls, Labour will be the largest party/have a majority on current polling and have bet accordingly, but that's a different position from two years ago, when Labour had double digit leads.
On the Indyref all the polls show No winning if the referendum was this Thursday, but the trend generally has been a narrowing of No's lead over the last two years.
I suspect time will run out for Yes this time to overhaul that lead.
I've not commented on Scotland and I won't now.
As far as Westminster is concerned, we has the London poll on Monday with the split 45-35-8-8. Now those numbers mask what is really going on and fortunately we have the London local election data as a backup.
The LDs currently have seven seats in London - on the straight line UNS figures you'd expect them to be wiped out but looking at the local election data tells a different story. Even a prominent Carshalton Tory who posts on here has conceded that Tom Brake will survive and I suspect Paul Burstow will as well and with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable it's a case of how strong the personal vote might or might not be.
The Conservatives could lose ten seats if Labour's strong performance in the local contests is mirrored next May.
I'm quite bullish on the Lib Dems holding their seats.
My expectation the further down South the country you go the stronger the Lib Dem performance
As I have chastised people for denying the polling, I said the same when The Lord Oakeshott poll showed Vince losing Twickers
96% book on the Tories and Lib Dems in Torbay currently
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
The standard of play won't generally be at Olympic level but are a few exceptions. The Kenyans in the middle distance running for example. And I'm sure the rugby sevens will be world standard with all the best teams competing.
Some years the World Athletics Championships don't measure up to the Olympics.
If his view is to denigrate other athletes he is an arse. If he actually said that he should be ashamed and is not worthy of any respect. Often the Olympics are crap as well.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
Salmond is a very poor debater, he's generally bested by Lamont at FMQs.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
Darling did say anytime, anywhere regarding a debate. Someone who has lost more than 20 points in his approval ratings over the last year can't afford to look like a cowardly blusterer.
Australia’s carbon tax has been repealed, leaving the country with no official policy to achieve the minimum 5% greenhouse emissions reduction target it has signed up to in international agreements. The Liberal-led government said households will be better off by an average $550 following the move.
The tax was $25.40 a tonne and the repeal will cost the budget around $7bn over the next four years as around 350 businesses, mainly electricity generators and big manufacturers, no longer have to pay the tax.
The government argued the carbon pricing scheme had been ineffective, although national emissions fell by 0.8% in the first calendar year of its operation, the largest fall in 24 years of records.
Since the tax began, emissions from the east coast electricity market have fallen 11%, but emissions from other sources – especially coal and gas -have increased.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s special powers are to monitor and enforce only electricity and gas price reductions. Electricity bills will rise, but by an estimated 9% less than they otherwise would. Gas bills will rise by an estimated 7% less than they would have with the tax still in place.
The government says it will now achieve the target of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions (compared with 2000 levels by 2020) through its Direct Action policy, which will offer $2.5bn in competitive grants over the next four years to companies and organisations voluntarily reducing emissions. The policy is voluntary and puts no overall cap on emissions.
"The government says it will now achieve the target of a 5% reduction in Australian emissions (compared with 2000 levels by 2020) through its Direct Action policy, which will offer $2.5bn in competitive grants over the next four years to companies and organisations voluntarily reducing emissions."
This sort of thing annoys me. If you're going to do it put the saved money into researching making some common item more energy efficient. Any successful result would not only be useful in itself, it would make money and it would cut emissions more than a 5% reduction just in Australia as you could sell it everywhere.
edit: In other words, believe in it or not why is the default on global warming always the stone age solution rather than the space age solution.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
Farage monstered Clegg as the polls showed, it was the media that tried to spin it the other way.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
The betting markets are behaving a bit unusually here. Whilst NO remains super-strong on betfair, at Ladbrokes the betting is clearly moving in favour of YES. 82% of all the money we've taken since the Commonwealth Games has started has been for YES - and this is a very big betting event.
It's hard for the bookies to shorten up the Yes odds when it's so much bigger on "the machine" - but are the exchanges a good reflection of public sentiment on this event? Maybe not; a lot of the money we are taking is from new accounts, very occasional bettors and shop clients in Scotland, many of whom no nothing of betfair or prefer to deal with high street bookies. If all of this cash was going into the exchanges, the market would likely look a lot different right now.
The way the betfair market is going at the moment, there is certainly a possibility that a very small number of people (perhaps just one) with deep pockets is keeping the NO odds artificially low. IF the polls start to move after the games and the debate, the YES price might collapse very quickly, which is why I think it's a good trading bet at 6.8ish.
I still think any boost from the sport and the debate will probably be short lived and NO will win relatively comfortably.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The betting markets are behaving a bit unusually here. Whilst NO remains super-strong on betfair, at Ladbrokes the betting is clearly moving in favour of YES. 82% of all the money we've taken since the Commonwealth Games has started has been for YES - and this is a very big betting event.
It's hard for the bookies to shorten up the Yes odds when it's so much bigger on "the machine" - but are the exchanges a good reflection of public sentiment on this event? Maybe not; a lot of the money we are taking is from new accounts, very occasional bettors and shop clients in Scotland, many of whom no nothing of betfair or prefer to deal with high street bookies. If all of this cash was going into the exchanges, the market would likely look a lot different right now.
The way the betfair market is going at the moment, there is certainly a possibility that a very small number of people (perhaps just one) with deep pockets is keeping the NO odds artificially low. IF the polls start to move after the games and the debate, the YES price might collapse very quickly, which is why I think it's a good trading bet at 6.8ish.
I still think any boost from the sport and the debate will probably be short lived and NO will win relatively comfortably.
Any chance of you opening a which pollster will be the most accurate in the Indyref market ?
Shadsy : "If the polls start to move after the games and the debate, the YES price might collapse very quickly, which is why I think it's a good trading bet at 6.8ish."
Yes, it certainly looks better than the 6.2 currently available on Ladbrokes' "machine"!
Ebola: apparently a chap's being tested in Hong Kong.
The sort-of city-state is, of course, immensely densely populated.
I'm surprised the outbreak isn't getting more coverage given it's up to 90% mortality rate and high degree of infectiousness, particularly compared with SARS and the like, which was wildly overblown.
I've always thought Ebola was relatively hard to get infected by - I.E. you need to be in close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected patient, rather than it being spread through the respiratory system via coughing and sneezing - That's usually how the worst epidemics and pandemics spread?
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
I don't think the 15% death tax is only applied above the nil rate band nor the rolled up mansion tax. So what will happen is that those two taxes will be paid out of the estate then there will be another 40% on everything above the nil rate band. And is the 15% death tax per person or per estate? If the former the same a married couple could end up paying 30%.
Either way, a lot of people who are not now liable to IHT will end up paying something and the rest could well end up having more than half their estate taken by the government.
I've always said, look at the general trend of polling.
In Westminster VI Polls, Labour will be the largest party/have a majority on current polling and have bet accordingly, but that's a different position from two years ago, when Labour had double digit leads.
On the Indyref all the polls show No winning if the referendum was this Thursday, but the trend generally has been a narrowing of No's lead over the last two years.
I suspect time will run out for Yes this time to overhaul that lead.
I've not commented on Scotland and I won't now.
As far as Westminster is concerned, we has the London poll on Monday with the split 45-35-8-8. Now those numbers mask what is really going on and fortunately we have the London local election data as a backup.
The LDs currently have seven seats in London - on the straight line UNS figures you'd expect them to be wiped out but looking at the local election data tells a different story. Even a prominent Carshalton Tory who posts on here has conceded that Tom Brake will survive and I suspect Paul Burstow will as well and with Simon Hughes and Vince Cable it's a case of how strong the personal vote might or might not be.
The Conservatives could lose ten seats if Labour's strong performance in the local contests is mirrored next May.
Those London numbers would imply Labour 39% Conservative 38%, if repeated nationally. However, UKIP clearly do much better outside London than within London, so both the Conservative and Labour figures can be reduced, to get the national picture.
Does anyone have an overall vote total for the London local elections?
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
It just drives more and more people into tax avoidance/tax planning situations.
Along with a huge increase in assessment and spending to monitor/control by the government.
And the inheritance as income is flawed, it's just unworkable.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
WHat does Cook declare on here - unders/overs 160 ?
I'd guess it's more a question of time. Hopefully he'll declare before tea, in about 40/45 overs from now. What rate do you think we can score at? I'll be disappointed if it's not over 4.5 an over
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
IHT is the most expensive tax for the state to administer, and given it only raises about 3-4bn a year, could be scrapped if the political will was there.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Salmond has inadvertently talked himself into a corner and can't get out.
He was quite happy to challenge Cameron to a debate, on the quite simple reasons that an Ex- english public school/oxford/bullingdon/Carlton Communications PR type would show up the worst type of Englishness to the Scots. Salmond would win the publicity even if he lost the debate.
Cameron, thankfully, had the trap explained to him and he refused as "he did not have a vote".
Darling on the other hand is a Scottish legal type, sharp and clever who could not only make mince meat of Salmond as well as win the debate.
Salmond has the unfortunate propensity to make things up on the hoof and as they say, shoot from the lip. Letting Darling loose on him, taking all the YESNP fantasies apart will make interesting viewing.
As to allowing Sturgeon, another legal type, to debate with Darling instead, would make some sense, however, her machine gun delivery of fantasies in which no one can get a word edgeways is beginning to put people off, chiefly because they have no idea what she has waffled on about (and I suspect, neither has she).
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
Sheesh! I pay more tax than that! Those figures should be mentioned every time Balls and Milliband talk about fairness.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
IHT is the most expensive tax for the state to administer, and given it only raises about 3-4bn a year, could be scrapped if the political will was there.
Australia, that great bastion of privilege, abolished inheritance tax years ago. Given that it is paid only by the stupid or the unlucky and almost never by the seriously wealthy, we should follow suit. However, can you imagine the screaming that such a move would induce. Politically it would be a very bad move, so it will stay.
As for Burnham's death tax, I think he was giving his own view on his own pet project and there seems very little chance of it being adopted as Labour policy. Even Brown recognised the idea was political poison when it was floated a few years back.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
IHT is the most expensive tax for the state to administer, and given it only raises about 3-4bn a year, could be scrapped if the political will was there.
Australia, that great bastion of privilege, abolished inheritance tax years ago. Given that it is paid only by the stupid or the unlucky and almost never by the seriously wealthy, we should follow suit. However, can you imagine the screaming that such a move would induce. Politically it would be a very bad move, so it will stay.
As for Burnham's death tax, I think he was giving his own view on his own pet project and there seems very little chance of it being adopted as Labour policy. Even Brown recognised the idea was political poison when it was floated a few years back.
Indeed. The only way to do it would be at a point of time where the economy was booming, with a large tory majority. IE not now, and probably at the start of the governments term in a 'feel good' budget.
But you're right, politically it would be very difficult.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
I don't think the 15% death tax is only applied above the nil rate band nor the rolled up mansion tax. So what will happen is that those two taxes will be paid out of the estate then there will be another 40% on everything above the nil rate band. And is the 15% death tax per person or per estate? If the former the same a married couple could end up paying 30%.
Either way, a lot of people who are not now liable to IHT will end up paying something and the rest could well end up having more than half their estate taken by the government.
The point is this proposed tax would be sprung on people without any time to plan. And anyone can die anytime. Looking after the old is an issue but I wonder iof the numbers in care are as large as suggested or projected. We should be encouraging families to look after theor own and pay the basic costs like now from general taxation - people have paid it all their lives.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Last line was interesting, and rings true - namely that an engineer refused to join them because of the blame culture.
It's their own damned fault. They axed Schumacher, Brawn and Todt to go all Italian, and wonder why they aren't winning anymore when they prefer nationality to meritocracy. James Allison's a good designer (although repeated efforts to hire Newey probably won't have bolstered his morale) and if they utterly ditch the aero compromise to focus on the engine next year they could make up ground.
Not sure if they'll have the freedom to develop it enough, though, and development permitted per year will decline. So, if they can't recover most of the ground next year they'll probably be screwed until 2018-2020 or similar.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
As I said, all no doubt legal and above board. There again nobody has ever claimed Amazon or Starbucks ever did anything illegal or paid less tax than they were obliged to.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
The labour death tax will be utterly toxic for them....
Die with £1M and Labour will take £550,000
They'll take more than that. Remember the rolled up mansion tax if part of your estate is a property and you don't have sufficient cash/income to pay for it.
Not entirely true (to be fair to labour) due to the 325 nil rate band. (you'll pay 55% on the excess over that), so it'll actually be more £371k or so.
The LD idea of taxing such inheritances as income is a better one. It would encourage the break up of larger estates as more sensible to have more smaller benificiaries.
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
The LD idea would mean that even more of the estate is taxed at a much higher rate. And it's not income. More sensible would be to have a much lower rate but make it payable on the whole estate. It widens the tax base and reduces the incentive to find ways round it. Interestingly a lot of countries are moving to abolish or very significantly reduce inheritance tax.
Foxinsox's PB truism:
The only fair taxes are those paid by other people.
The combination of death duties and Western Front slaughter of junior officers was very effective at breaking up the Aristocratic estates of the 19th century, both in UK and Ireland.
Taxing capital assets may be a better way, so back to the mansion tax...
Credit to AB for at least thinking about funding for the frail elderly. The alternative of the workhouse is not an appealing one.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
Well, if no tax is payable on donations received by an organisation why should tax be levied on donations received by an individual when someone dies? It would be fair to have both types of donations treated the same, no?
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Yes but it is arguably Westminster's fault for excluding devomax, presumably as they wrongly calculated there'd be a 90 per cent no vote. Now that it will be 60/40, Westminster will have to grant devomax anyway (for some values of devomax, as the mathematicians say). SNP devomax will include control of tax.
"The combination of death duties and Western Front slaughter of junior officers was very effective at breaking up the Aristocratic estates of the 19th century, both in UK and Ireland."
Was it really? I live in West Sussex and great tracts of the County are still owned by three families that have owned them for centuries. Their estates maybe a bit smaller now than they were in 1914, but not so you'd notice.
Furthermore, new estates are now being built up. One of my former clients has for years been cheerfully buying up all the land he can and not of penny of inheritance tax will ever be paid when he curls up his toes.
None of this bothers me, I am not the envious type. What does worry me is some bloody fool coming up with some damn silly tax that would mean my widow has to sell the house when I snuff it.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
I think that the charm and reasonableness of the Yes campaigners may be hard to sustain post a No vote and transform into internal feuding. It did post the 78 referendum with the SNP votes collapsing, going mostly to Mrs Thatchers Tories in May 79.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
Salmond is a very poor debater, he's generally bested by Lamont at FMQs.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
Well, if no tax is payable on donations received by an organisation why should tax be levied on donations received by an individual when someone dies? It would be fair to have both types of donations treated the same, no?
Or on tomorrow's monthly donation from my employer into my bank account? Of course, we might be stretching the definition of donation to cover three clearly different situations. Presumably the Laffer curve flat tax advocates would want legacies taxed as income, rather than as "donations".
"The combination of death duties and Western Front slaughter of junior officers was very effective at breaking up the Aristocratic estates of the 19th century, both in UK and Ireland."
Was it really? I live in West Sussex and great tracts of the County are still owned by three families that have owned them for centuries. Their estates maybe a bit smaller now than they were in 1914, but not so you'd notice.
Furthermore, new estates are now being built up. One of my former clients has for years been cheerfully buying up all the land he can and not of penny of inheritance tax will ever be paid when he curls up his toes.
None of this bothers me, I am not the envious type. What does worry me is some bloody fool coming up with some damn silly tax that would mean my widow has to sell the house when I snuff it.
The distribution of wealth has remained very stable for centuries. I read one estimate that the top 1% of the population owns as high a proportion of England's wealth as they did in the Fourteenth century.
Of course, the make-up of that 1% has changed. All that the break-up of estates meant was that one set of landowners had to sell to another group of people who were on the rise.
It is looking like a NO win, and I was formerly a bit feart of YES
One thing puzzles me, though, is why Darling agreed to these debates. NO are winning in the polls, why offer YES a potential but unnecessary game-changer? They seem to be the last big chance for YES to regain momentum.
Or was some deal done years ago that I missed?
Everyone expects Salmond to win.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
I'd stick Farage-Clegg in as a slight counterexample to that - everyone expected Farage to win.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
Salmond is a very poor debater, he's generally bested by Lamont at FMQs.
Cuckoo, Cuckoo
Yes, that's about Salmind's standard of debate......
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Yes but it is arguably Westminster's fault for excluding devomax, presumably as they wrongly calculated there'd be a 90 per cent no vote. Now that it will be 60/40, Westminster will have to grant devomax anyway (for some values of devomax, as the mathematicians say). SNP devomax will include control of tax.
Control of tax but not spending? You can't grant control of spending without also granting control of borrowing and I can't see Westminster giving Scotland access to its credit card. They might take out a new card for Scotland to use but with a very low limit, like one might do for a teenager. If it gets to that what is the point of the whole thing? Devomax, on that version would, I suspect just stoke up more resentment on both sides of the border.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
And here we have it - losing the referendum is a victory for the SNP.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Pete, when did Brown bolster anything, I must have missed that one. He had a couple of half baked rants to party audience and continued to fill his pockets as normal. He has done nothing re NO campaign.
Even a 60/40 vote (either way) will leave a lasting legacy of bitterness and anger for the losing side. 40% will lose their country unwillingly or 40% fail to get one as they hoped. Imagine what MalcolmG will have to say the morning after a NO!
* splutter*
The idea of poor old malcolm and a "legacy of bitterness and anger" is comedy gold. Malcolm starts with a 500 mile headstart of bitterness and anger.
As might I, had I the misfortune to be a penniless and illiterate racist Scotch loser.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
Well, if no tax is payable on donations received by an organisation why should tax be levied on donations received by an individual when someone dies? It would be fair to have both types of donations treated the same, no?
Or on tomorrow's monthly donation from my employer into my bank account? Of course, we might be stretching the definition of donation to cover three clearly different situations. Presumably the Laffer curve flat tax advocates would want legacies taxed as income, rather than as "donations".
What happens if you set yourself up as a "speaking business" ?
And get donations to cover the cost of speeches to far flung corners of the world. I assume your meal and hotel bills then become "expenses & subsistence"...
Some might consider there are YESNP posters on this thread who are in cloud CUCKOO land in thinking they will certainly have a currency union and on their terms.
In other news Prime Minister Netanyahu has been voted "Humanitarian of the Year" by the voters of Gaza.
Interesting little snippet this morning. Labour's income last year £33.3million, tax paid £14,000. All legal and above board no doubt, good accountancy and tax planning, making full and proper use of lawful allowances and so forth. The very stuff that they have been criticising others for.
No tax is payable on donations received by an organisation. Tax is only paid on trading profits (if any) or interest earned.
Well, if no tax is payable on donations received by an organisation why should tax be levied on donations received by an individual when someone dies? It would be fair to have both types of donations treated the same, no?
Or on tomorrow's monthly donation from my employer into my bank account? Of course, we might be stretching the definition of donation to cover three clearly different situations. Presumably the Laffer curve flat tax advocates would want legacies taxed as income, rather than as "donations".
I wasn't being entirely serious! But seriously why should a political party not pay tax on money it receives? Taxes for all could be lower if there were fewer exemptions and exceptions.
And there is a difference between a donation to a party or individual and income from an employer. In the latter case it is earned because work is done by the employee. The political party / inheritor are simply receiving gifts. So I don't see why a gift to a political party should not be taxed while a gift to a child is.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
And here we have it - losing the referendum is a victory for the SNP.
That's what it means isn't it, to be a member of NATO and the EU?
Deary me, his gloves and bat were about a foot away from the ball.
In fairness the umpire, and commentators, heard two noises. The umpire thought two of bat/pad/glove.
In fact it was bat on ground/pad.
DRS is required for all matches. India will soon sign up if they're playing with themselves, which is my experience from about 15 years old is always less satisfying than with one other ....
Alex Salmond has turned down two offers of a head-to-head BBC debate with Alistair Darling despite the First Minister’s boast his opponent has the “heebie jeebies” about taking him on, the Telegraph can disclose today.
Sources close to the negotiations between the two sides said Mr Darling, the former Labour Chancellor, accepted invitations to debate Mr Salmond on August 12 then August 21 but the SNP leader declined both.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
Mr. G., as you know I am a great proponent of independence for Scotland and if I was a Scot I'd be doing all in my power to bring it about. However, by independence I mean independence not some half way house which will, if it happens, just produce more ill-feeling and this time on both sides of the border.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
My feeling about Scottish Independence, and the campaign has and will, create an awful amount of noise though the polling will end up the same as it started.There was some nervousness in the No position which was resolved with Gordon Brown bolstering the campaign.In fact,Gordon Brown,whilst heavily criticised here of course,made the right call at a critical time.I think the only hope Salmond might have is if the polls show a likelihood of a Tory government next May and so far they're not. Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
You mean all this fuss and fury has been for nothing? I think Mr. G. might be a tad disappointed if SNP never really wanted independence in the first place.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
Hurst, it is spurious use of what Devomax means. Salmond would have settled for , as would most people in Scotland , devolution except for Defence/Foreign policy at a push. What the unionists propose is same as we have now where all power is retained by Westminster and is at their whim. When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
I don't think they have quite grasped the asymmetry of their position.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....
Comments
My expectation the further down South the country you go the stronger the Lib Dem performance
As I have chastised people for denying the polling, I said the same when The Lord Oakeshott poll showed Vince losing Twickers
And that point is equally applicable wherever the Commonwealth Games is hosted. Although no doubt our Scottish friends will take it as a personal insult against their fair city of Glasgow. And their Scottie dogs.
Bolt is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't change the fact it was rude, tactless and quite uncalled for.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/torbay/winning-party
I think the value is Sanders at 8-11 there.
But 8-5 isn't bad on Kevin Foster either.
Anyway, the UK chap tested was negative. Not sure about the Hong Kong fellow.
Usain St. Leo Bolt @usainbolt 5m
I'm waking up to this nonsense..journalist please don't create lies to make headlines
When a hard working and diligent candidate like Marcus Wood can't win Torbay you know Sanders and the Lib Dems are strong in that part of the world.
So success is performance minus anticipation.
If Darling does better than anticipated then it creates momentum for No.
If Salmond wins it's largely as expected.
And not one of my 4 taxi drivers was a member of the SDL.
He did, quite well I thought. But when the echo-chamber of the media got involved it turned into a monstering, a hammering, a battering. People expected Clegg to lose - but not as badly as he did - or as badly as he was effectively reported to have done.
It gave UKIP a decent boost and didn't do the Lib Dems any favours at all. If Salmond wins "big" enough it could still swing some DKs.
It's a huge ask though.
We're all laughing our socks off at this story in my office.
This sort of thing annoys me. If you're going to do it put the saved money into researching making some common item more energy efficient. Any successful result would not only be useful in itself, it would make money and it would cut emissions more than a 5% reduction just in Australia as you could sell it everywhere.
edit: In other words, believe in it or not why is the default on global warming always the stone age solution rather than the space age solution.
Would a JackW poll of East Midlands be a MardyArse ?
It's hard for the bookies to shorten up the Yes odds when it's so much bigger on "the machine" - but are the exchanges a good reflection of public sentiment on this event? Maybe not; a lot of the money we are taking is from new accounts, very occasional bettors and shop clients in Scotland, many of whom no nothing of betfair or prefer to deal with high street bookies. If all of this cash was going into the exchanges, the market would likely look a lot different right now.
The way the betfair market is going at the moment, there is certainly a possibility that a very small number of people (perhaps just one) with deep pockets is keeping the NO odds artificially low. IF the polls start to move after the games and the debate, the YES price might collapse very quickly, which is why I think it's a good trading bet at 6.8ish.
I still think any boost from the sport and the debate will probably be short lived and NO will win relatively comfortably.
I know you had the Survation v Yougov market.
But some of us want to back Ipsos-Mori.
Yes, it certainly looks better than the 6.2 currently available on Ladbrokes' "machine"!
Either way, a lot of people who are not now liable to IHT will end up paying something and the rest could well end up having more than half their estate taken by the government.
Does anyone have an overall vote total for the London local elections?
Andy Burnhams proposal is mostly directed for internal party reasons, but does at least start to address the issue of how to fund elderly care in a demographically challenging world.
Along with a huge increase in assessment and spending to monitor/control by the government.
And the inheritance as income is flawed, it's just unworkable.
IMHO!
Rich Conservative friends, 1%, bankers etc etc.
He was quite happy to challenge Cameron to a debate, on the quite simple reasons that an Ex- english public school/oxford/bullingdon/Carlton Communications PR type would show up the worst type of Englishness to the Scots. Salmond would win the publicity even if he lost the debate.
Cameron, thankfully, had the trap explained to him and he refused as "he did not have a vote".
Darling on the other hand is a Scottish legal type, sharp and clever who could not only make mince meat of Salmond as well as win the debate.
Salmond has the unfortunate propensity to make things up on the hoof and as they say, shoot from the lip. Letting Darling loose on him, taking all the YESNP fantasies apart will make interesting viewing.
As to allowing Sturgeon, another legal type, to debate with Darling instead, would make some sense, however, her machine gun delivery of fantasies in which no one can get a word edgeways is beginning to put people off, chiefly because they have no idea what she has waffled on about (and I suspect, neither has she).
As for Burnham's death tax, I think he was giving his own view on his own pet project and there seems very little chance of it being adopted as Labour policy. Even Brown recognised the idea was political poison when it was floated a few years back.
I hope he hasn't staked too much with that kind of analysis.
England should declare about 10 overs before tea tomorrow and allow India to chase about 700 with 40 overs remaining.
Chortle ....
But you're right, politically it would be very difficult.
I suspect the slightly odds on position on an England victory looks most likely after the Indians efforts this morning.
England should win it from here - comfortably but not going to risk my cash on it at odds on.
Perhaps,the more interesting matter to speculate on is the post-NO scenario.Whether it's devo-max or minimax,without a lot of doubt Salmond will end up the victor.He is one of those people who have the knack of falling in the smelly stuff and coming out smelling of roses!
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/22058/9399889/ferraris-problems-with-power---and-the-complex-deficiencies-of-the-f14-t
Last line was interesting, and rings true - namely that an engineer refused to join them because of the blame culture.
It's their own damned fault. They axed Schumacher, Brawn and Todt to go all Italian, and wonder why they aren't winning anymore when they prefer nationality to meritocracy. James Allison's a good designer (although repeated efforts to hire Newey probably won't have bolstered his morale) and if they utterly ditch the aero compromise to focus on the engine next year they could make up ground.
Not sure if they'll have the freedom to develop it enough, though, and development permitted per year will decline. So, if they can't recover most of the ground next year they'll probably be screwed until 2018-2020 or similar.
Alex Salmond almost certainly wanted devomax all along -- remember it was David Cameron who fought to have the devomax option removed from the ballot. Note too that even full independence, as defined by Salmond, looks awfully like devomax.
The only fair taxes are those paid by other people.
The combination of death duties and Western Front slaughter of junior officers was very effective at breaking up the Aristocratic estates of the 19th century, both in UK and Ireland.
Taxing capital assets may be a better way, so back to the mansion tax...
Credit to AB for at least thinking about funding for the frail elderly. The alternative of the workhouse is not an appealing one.
Isn't there a problem with DevoMax in that Westminster will still be calling the financial shots? The amount of devolution that can be allowed with money matters is really very limited.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28562591
There's got to be some joke in this about leaderless parties in 2015...
"The combination of death duties and Western Front slaughter of junior officers was very effective at breaking up the Aristocratic estates of the 19th century, both in UK and Ireland."
Was it really? I live in West Sussex and great tracts of the County are still owned by three families that have owned them for centuries. Their estates maybe a bit smaller now than they were in 1914, but not so you'd notice.
Furthermore, new estates are now being built up. One of my former clients has for years been cheerfully buying up all the land he can and not of penny of inheritance tax will ever be paid when he curls up his toes.
None of this bothers me, I am not the envious type. What does worry me is some bloody fool coming up with some damn silly tax that would mean my widow has to sell the house when I snuff it.
Of course, the make-up of that 1% has changed. All that the break-up of estates meant was that one set of landowners had to sell to another group of people who were on the rise.
When we have a YES vote all the powers will be ours and if we wish to have a currency union or such like then it will be on our terms and all other powers remain with us. As they say power devolved is power retained. It will happen as John says.
The idea of poor old malcolm and a "legacy of bitterness and anger" is comedy gold. Malcolm starts with a 500 mile headstart of bitterness and anger.
As might I, had I the misfortune to be a penniless and illiterate racist Scotch loser.
And get donations to cover the cost of speeches to far flung corners of the world. I assume your meal and hotel bills then become "expenses & subsistence"...
Two poor decisions for Balance over the match.
In other news Prime Minister Netanyahu has been voted "Humanitarian of the Year" by the voters of Gaza.
And there is a difference between a donation to a party or individual and income from an employer. In the latter case it is earned because work is done by the employee. The political party / inheritor are simply receiving gifts. So I don't see why a gift to a political party should not be taxed while a gift to a child is.
In fact it was bat on ground/pad.
DRS is required for all matches. India will soon sign up if they're playing with themselves, which is my experience from about 15 years old is always less satisfying than with one other ....
And even if they do the importance of one bad call in a test match cannot be matched against a lucky call for the Second XI in Division 2.
Alex Salmond has turned down two offers of a head-to-head BBC debate with Alistair Darling despite the First Minister’s boast his opponent has the “heebie jeebies” about taking him on, the Telegraph can disclose today.
Sources close to the negotiations between the two sides said Mr Darling, the former Labour Chancellor, accepted invitations to debate Mr Salmond on August 12 then August 21 but the SNP leader declined both.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10999560/Alex-Salmond-rejects-two-BBC-debates-with-Alistair-Darling.html
As an aside, the idea that Scotland will get everything it wants on its own terms whether under Devomax or in the independence negotiations, is daft.
At its crudest, they have 8 votes, the other guy has 92 - and the other guy will ONLY be thinking about the rUK electorate - which is why a currency union, for example, is for the birds....