BBC once again showing how full of holes our immigration system is, this time with bogus marriages. Apart from anything else, apparently an illegal immigrant can stay in the UK if they get married to a Briton. I'm sorry, but once you have broken the law to come/stay here, you should be ineligible for ever being made a legal immigrant.
Mr Eagles, an interesting couple of threads today which almost seem at odds with each other.
The first thread showing that the Labour Party were more “liked” and the second putting the Tories in front in terms of “Fitness to govern”.
The question therefore is what is uppermost in people’s minds when they enter the polling booth next year. The party activists and loyalists can be taken for granted (their votes I mean, not the hard work that they do. Irrespective of which party they support I respect them tremendously – I’ve done it myself for years).
If we only had data going back a couple of decades on these two questions we might be able to see if there was a correlation between the winning party at each General Election. Would that then give us an edge in any betting that we make. Does anyone have any views of bygone elections where one or the other of these measures were clearly apparent?
If you decide that Fitness to govern was the main influence on the majority of floating voters then you should put your money on the Conservatives. If it is Likeability then put your money on Labour.
Of course, anyone that follows my betting tips will soon end up at the Food Banks discussed earlier in this thread (but will also not have to pay the mansion tax – even on a wigwam in Sherwood Forest)
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
Unfair in that you chuck families out of a place in which they are settled, because you made the policy change retroactive? Or unfair on the children who have to move schools? Unfair how?
Unfair on those whose need is greater. Unfair on those in any other kind of accomodation, who have to move if they can't afford to stay where they are. And of course unfair on the taxpayer, who at a time of massive financial strain is being asked to waste money which could be spent on, you know, the NHS, or people in need.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
Sorry, should have realised that exactly the same principle when introduced by Labour was fluffy and loved by all, but when extended to include public sector renting was nasty and vindictive. Because there's no way that following its introduction in the private sector people moved out of the family home leaving a room empty.
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
So surprise, surprise the people involved in this gang organising sham marriages is Romanian and use Romanian citizens for the EU person to get married to. It's almost like Romania has a very high rate of criminality and it exposes us to a lot of crime to have an open border with Romania. If only we had had a major politician to bring attention to this fact!
Unfair in that you chuck families out of a place in which they are settled, because you made the policy change retroactive? Or unfair on the children who have to move schools? Unfair how?
Unfair on those whose need is greater. Unfair on those in any other kind of accomodation, who have to move if they can't afford to stay where they are. And of course unfair on the taxpayer, who at a time of massive financial strain is being asked to waste money which could be spent on, you know, the NHS, or people in need.
Except if you are subsidising the purchase of council houses. Then it's OK.
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
You seem to have difficulty with the meaning of "retrospective". The so-called "bedroom tax" applies to existing tenants from the point it was introduced and not a moment before. Had it been retrospective, existing tenants would have had their benefits deducted for spare rooms, in the period before the spare room subsidy was abolished. In other words, they would have unknowingly incurred a liability before the law was introduced which would then have become due after the law entered into force. That is clearly not what happened.
Edit: I see bobajob & bigjohnowls have fallen into the same fallacy.
Tony Blair really is a warmongering c0@#, isn't he? He seems sadder and madder, everytime I see him promoting peace in the middle east from some big meeting or other.
I see that the Chief of Leics Fire and Rescue has stepped down today.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
Sorry, should have realised that exactly the same principle when introduced by Labour was fluffy and loved by all, but when extended to include public sector renting was nasty and vindictive. Because there's no way that following its introduction in the private sector people moved out of the family home leaving a room empty.
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
No big view on this, but when you say privately rented do you mean as in paid for by the state to a private landlord?
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
About what retrospective bedroom taxes?
What about them? I thought you where against inheriting property? Which is what, effectively holding onto public sector housing bigger than you require is doing. Aren't you a fan of inheritance taxes?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
You seem to have difficulty with the meaning of "retrospective". The so-called "bedroom tax" applies to existing tenants from the point it was introduced and not a moment before. Had it been retrospective, existing tenants would have had their benefits deducted for spare rooms, in the period before the spare room subsidy was abolished. In other words, they would have unknowingly incurred a liability before the law was introduced which would then have become due after the law entered into force. That is clearly not what happened.
Yup, I got the wrong word. My bad. But the fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory tax remains. The Labour one applies to new tenants, the Tory one to existing tenants.
So surprise, surprise the people involved in this gang organising sham marriages is Romanian and use Romanian citizens for the EU person to get married to. It's almost like Romania has a very high rate of criminality and it exposes us to a lot of crime to have an open border with Romania. If only we had had a major politician to bring attention to this fact!
Politicians who say controversia things that are proved right in later years are the scourge of the establishment
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
Sorry, should have realised that exactly the same principle when introduced by Labour was fluffy and loved by all, but when extended to include public sector renting was nasty and vindictive. Because there's no way that following its introduction in the private sector people moved out of the family home leaving a room empty.
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
No big view on this, but when you say privately rented do you mean as in paid for by the state to a private landlord?
I mean as opposed to living in council accommodation.
Tony Blair really is a warmongering c0@#, isn't he? He seems sadder and madder, everytime I see him promoting peace in the middle east from some big meeting or other.
I see that the Chief of Leics Fire and Rescue has stepped down today.
From what Mr Stopper has posted here I would be inclined to shout, "Huzzah!" The bloody fool should have gone yonks ago as was clearly unfit as a strategic leader. But why the resignation?
Quite a few (70,000 according to the LibDems), which is why the IFS thought it would raise £1.7bn/year when the LibDems floated it, though we'll need to see details here to value it accurately. Obviously it's not enough to address all that needs to be done on its own, but it's a useful start. The Tory equivalent appears to be some more benefit cuts.
Of course it can be avoided if you decide to give away half your £3 million home to save £10,000. I wouldn't, and doubt if many would.
Really, Nick: only a Labour person would think that saving £10,000 is not worth bothering about. That's a lot of money for anyone - particularly if their income is nowhere near the sort of level where that can just be paid without noticing.
As a result of ludicrous house price inflation, looked on benignly by both parties, a lot of people are sitting on houses apparently worth silly amounts but with incomes far far lower than might be implied by those house valuations. A tax based on a theoretical capital valuation which has to be paid out of a real and lower income, from which income tax, NI and council tax have already been taken is not a small measure. It's a 4th tax to be paid out of income. People may have no sympathy for those with £3mio houses but they're well aware that they could be next just as they have been for every other measure initially aimed just at the rich.
You could - as Hugh appears to have suggested below - just say that all houses need to be taxed and so everyone is going to have to pay something. At least that would have the merit of honesty.
But to pretend that only a few people owning multi-million £ mansions can fund the 10p tax rate and the NHS is both stupid, dishonest and economically illiterate.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
Sorry, should have realised that exactly the same principle when introduced by Labour was fluffy and loved by all, but when extended to include public sector renting was nasty and vindictive. Because there's no way that following its introduction in the private sector people moved out of the family home leaving a room empty.
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
How many disabled people have actually been thrown out as opposed to scare stories of it happening? And of those how many are in Labour councils that refused to make use of the funds specifically provided to avoid it happening?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
You seem to have difficulty with the meaning of "retrospective". The so-called "bedroom tax" applies to existing tenants from the point it was introduced and not a moment before. Had it been retrospective, existing tenants would have had their benefits deducted for spare rooms, in the period before the spare room subsidy was abolished. In other words, they would have unknowingly incurred a liability before the law was introduced which would then have become due after the law entered into force. That is clearly not what happened.
Yup, I got the wrong word. My bad. But the fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory tax remains. The Labour one applies to new tenants, the Tory one to existing tenants.
What happens in the caring Labour system when a child moves out of private rental accommodation rendering a spare room empty?
Yup, I got the wrong word. My bad. But the fundamental difference between the Labour and Tory tax remains. The Labour one applies to new tenants, the Tory one to existing tenants.
The wording is important, because ex post facto legislation is usually seen as a hallmark of tyrannical government. In any event, it is difficult to see the problem involved in social policy applying to every person in a given situation from the moment it is introduced, rather than only to those who happen later to enter that situation. Suppose, for example, that divorce was unlawful and that Parliament decided to legalise it. Should only those who got married after the reform was introduced be able to benefit? I think not.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
About what retrospective bedroom taxes?
What about them? I thought you where against inheriting property? Which is what, effectively holding onto public sector housing bigger than you require is doing. Aren't you a fan of inheritance taxes?
I am indeed.
I would tax silver spoons at a very punitive rate especially where found in the mouth of the newborn.
Inherited Wealth is bad would be my start point.
Clearly Mrs BJO does not know how lucky she is that I do not throw things at her when she watches Downton Abbey
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
He is wrong to claim that it was introduced in the form that it was introduced by the Tories. And the reason it did not create the uproar the Tory tax has done is precisely because it was not retrospective.
Sorry, should have realised that exactly the same principle when introduced by Labour was fluffy and loved by all, but when extended to include public sector renting was nasty and vindictive. Because there's no way that following its introduction in the private sector people moved out of the family home leaving a room empty.
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
No big view on this, but when you say privately rented do you mean as in paid for by the state to a private landlord?
I mean as opposed to living in council accommodation.
I'm not trying to be cunning or sarcy here, I'm genuinely interested. What was the tax that labour introduced on private tenants. How is it possible to tax them for having an empty room?
If you cannot see the difference then what can we do? But put it this way, there would have been no chance that a disabled person living in a privately rented flat with an extra bedroom would have been thrown out under the Labour tax.
Err, not exactly:
The Work and Pensions Select Committee, March 2010, reporting on the LHA introduced by cuddly Labour at a time of unprecedented boom in the public finances:
There is clear evidence that the current LHA rules constitute a real barrier to independent living for disabled people who require an extra bedroom and we believe this requires urgent action from the Department. As a result of the continuing failure to conduct an equality impact assessment and demonstrate compliance with the Disability Equality Duty, the Committee remains very concerned about this aspect of Local Housing Allowance. We strongly disagree with the way in which the consultation on Housing Benefits has put the initial question about this policy and recommend that the Department changes LHA rules as a matter of urgency to allow for reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
Those evil Tories came in to power at a time of equally unprecedented strain on the public finances, and did something about it:
As part of the June 2010 Budget the new Government said that from April 2011 an additional bedroom would be allowed within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person, or someone with a long term health condition, has a proven need for overnight care and it is provided by a non-resident carer. This change affects all private sector claimants (where applicable) and not just those in receipt of the Local Housing Allowance
Quite a few (70,000 according to the LibDems), which is why the IFS thought it would raise £1.7bn/year when the LibDems floated it, though we'll need to see details here to value it accurately. Obviously it's not enough to address all that needs to be done on its own, but it's a useful start. The Tory equivalent appears to be some more benefit cuts.
Of course it can be avoided if you decide to give away half your £3 million home to save £10,000. I wouldn't, and doubt if many would.
Really, Nick: only a Labour person would think that saving £10,000 is not worth bothering about. That's a lot of money for anyone - particularly if their income is nowhere near the sort of level where that can just be paid without noticing.
As a result of ludicrous house price inflation, looked on benignly by both parties, a lot of people are sitting on houses apparently worth silly amounts but with incomes far far lower than might be implied by those house valuations. A tax based on a theoretical capital valuation which has to be paid out of a real and lower income, from which income tax, NI and council tax have already been taken is not a small measure. It's a 4th tax to be paid out of income. People may have no sympathy for those with £3mio houses but they're well aware that they could be next just as they have been for every other measure initially aimed just at the rich.
You could - as Hugh appears to have suggested below - just say that all houses need to be taxed and so everyone is going to have to pay something. At least that would have the merit of honesty.
But to pretend that only a few people owning multi-million £ mansions can fund the 10p tax rate and the NHS is both stupid, dishonest and economically illiterate.
Excuse me if I'm wrong but is NPxMP being an utter PLANK?
£10,000 PER ANNUM and NET OF INCOME TAX isn't it?
Ridiculous suggestion that people wouldn't look for ways to avoid that sort of tax - especially if the payer is 40p / 45p / 50p tax payer?
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
About what retrospective bedroom taxes?
What about them? I thought you where against inheriting property? Which is what, effectively holding onto public sector housing bigger than you require is doing. Aren't you a fan of inheritance taxes?
I am indeed.
I would tax silver spoons at a very punitive rate especially where found in the mouth of the newborn.
Inherited Wealth is bad would be my start point.
Clearly Mrs BJO does not know how lucky she is that I do not throw things at her when she watches Downton Abbey
But only when the boon of inheritance has been earned outside the public sector.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
About what retrospective bedroom taxes?
What about them? I thought you where against inheriting property? Which is what, effectively holding onto public sector housing bigger than you require is doing. Aren't you a fan of inheritance taxes?
I am indeed.
I would tax silver spoons at a very punitive rate especially where found in the mouth of the newborn.
Inherited Wealth is bad would be my start point.
Clearly Mrs BJO does not know how lucky she is that I do not throw things at her when she watches Downton Abbey
Why do you think inherited wealth is bad? All of it? Or only above a threshold? Does that include chattels e.g. a mother leaving her daughter her engagement ring, say? Why is that bad?
Genuine question.
(Also, leave Mrs BJO alone: Downton Abbey is Sunday night tosh of a very high order.)
He is awful. However as Gordo has lurked onto the stage once again perhaps even Balls looks good.
I noted over the weekend that someone (I forget who) said that Cameron had sanctioned Brown's Scottish promises. Could anyone point me to evidence for that?
Yes Gordon seems to have completely forgotten he's not in government any more. Utterly deluded.
Still I'm sure that if in 2000 Thatcher or John Major suddenly popped up on the news making policy announcements he would have been happy to take their views on board.
Mr. Owls, during Labour's time it went from zero to 50,000 (an infinity percent rise, if one wanted to be silly with stats). The numbers would be much the same if Labour had won in 2010, if the blues had an outright majority, or if Screaming Lord Sutch had been resurrected to assume his rightful place as PM.
But it's convenient to attack the evil Tories. So people do.
Food banks are a symptom. The cause is what counts. I suspect massive immigration, which has helped the wealthy and harmed the poor, is partly to blame.
Mr Dancer the people who know about these things ie the Trussel Trust seem to think the bedroom tax is mainly responsible for the extra 950k people. Only a Tory Govt would introduce such a thing IMO
Sadly for you, the bedroom tax was introduced by Labour, but as it was on private tennents, you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?
The Labour tax was not retrospective so did not affect people already living in their homes.
Did they introduce it? Is BJO wrong?
Lab are certainly introducing one big style on homes over £2m
Need to reintroduce 50p rate as well though so i hope this is still on the cards
Reduced to trolling now you have, yet again, been shown to be wrong?
About what retrospective bedroom taxes?
What about them? I thought you where against inheriting property? Which is what, effectively holding onto public sector housing bigger than you require is doing. Aren't you a fan of inheritance taxes?
I am indeed.
I would tax silver spoons at a very punitive rate especially where found in the mouth of the newborn.
Inherited Wealth is bad would be my start point.
Clearly Mrs BJO does not know how lucky she is that I do not throw things at her when she watches Downton Abbey
But only when the boon of inheritance has been earned outside the public sector.
No my Kids get nowt.
Besides which IHT kicks in at £1above the value of my estate
"We will declare we are going to live together. It won't happen, but that's what we'll declare."
How on Earth do such sham marriages go ahead without the people even ever living together? The UKBA doesn't even make the most basic of checks.
I think it's a basic legal principle that people are assumed to be truthful unless there exists evidence to the contrary.
That poses an obvious problem in this case, but as a truthful-by-default person one of the things that most annoys me is when my honesty is questioned without cause, but as a matter of course, and I would not like that to become the norm.
Tony Blair really is a warmongering c0@#, isn't he? He seems sadder and madder, everytime I see him promoting peace in the middle east from some big meeting or other.
I see that the Chief of Leics Fire and Rescue has stepped down today.
I've been out all day, I haven't heard anything about that at all! Mind you, he retired a few years ago, took his lump sum, and came back into post immediately, so he can walk whenever he wants, I guess.
Quite a few (70,000 according to the LibDems), which is why the IFS thought it would raise £1.7bn/year when the LibDems floated it, though we'll need to see details here to value it accurately. Obviously it's not enough to address all that needs to be done on its own, but it's a useful start. The Tory equivalent appears to be some more benefit cuts.
Of course it can be avoided if you decide to give away half your £3 million home to save £10,000. I wouldn't, and doubt if many would.
Really, Nick: only a Labour person would think that saving £10,000 is not worth bothering about. That's a lot of money for anyone - particularly if their income is nowhere near the sort of level where that can just be paid without noticing.
As a result of ludicrous house price inflation, looked on benignly by both parties, a lot of people are sitting on houses apparently worth silly amounts but with incomes far far lower than might be implied by those house valuations. A tax based on a theoretical capital valuation which has to be paid out of a real and lower income, from which income tax, NI and council tax have already been taken is not a small measure. It's a 4th tax to be paid out of income. People may have no sympathy for those with £3mio houses but they're well aware that they could be next just as they have been for every other measure initially aimed just at the rich.
You could - as Hugh appears to have suggested below - just say that all houses need to be taxed and so everyone is going to have to pay something. At least that would have the merit of honesty.
But to pretend that only a few people owning multi-million £ mansions can fund the 10p tax rate and the NHS is both stupid, dishonest and economically illiterate.
Excuse me if I'm wrong but is NPxMP being an utter PLANK?
£10,000 PER ANNUM and NET OF INCOME TAX isn't it?
Ridiculous suggestion that people wouldn't look for ways to avoid that sort of tax - especially if the payer is 40p / 45p / 50p tax payer?
You would have thought after he got out of the nice Westminster expense funded bubble, where he happily charged the tax payer basically the max every year, a few years in the real world would have got him re-adjusted to a life where most normal people claiming £24k in expenses on top of a healthy salary seems incredible.
I wonder if the the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate will mark the end of the big increases in personal allowances we have seen during the period of the coalition. If that happens more people will be dragged back into tax offsetting the small benefits (and greater complexity) provided by the 10p band. .
BBC once again showing how full of holes our immigration system is, this time with bogus marriages. Apart from anything else, apparently an illegal immigrant can stay in the UK if they get married to a Briton. I'm sorry, but once you have broken the law to come/stay here, you should be ineligible for ever being made a legal immigrant.
Bogus marriages of illegals should be annulled by the state and both foreign individuals should be deported and forbidden to re-enter the UK again for ever. EU citizen or not!
With all the discussion about EVEL I thought it would be interesting to see what Ed Miliband has to do to win England. Currently the situation is as follows:
To win a majority of 1 in the UK, Labour need to gain 68 seats. Seat number 68 on the list above is Norwich North with a majority of 3,901
To win a majority of 1 in England, Labour need to gain 77 seats. Excluding 12 higher placed Welsh and Scottish targets, seat number 89 on the list above is Battersea with a majority of 5,977
Tough but not impossible. Although at the bottom of the list I would say that LD-Lab switchers won't be enough in most seats and some direct Lab-Con switchers will also be needed (or very high UKIP-Con)
Quite a few (70,000 according to the LibDems), which is why the IFS thought it would raise £1.7bn/year when the LibDems floated it, though we'll need to see details here to value it accurately. Obviously it's not enough to address all that needs to be done on its own, but it's a useful start. The Tory equivalent appears to be some more benefit cuts. Of course it can be avoided if you decide to give away half your £3 million home to save £10,000. I wouldn't, and doubt if many would.
Example House worth £3m. Owner splits the property into two flats, 1 owned by him the other by his wife. £10,000 saved in first year funds the legal work etc. But some extra council tax of approx £2,000 per extra property. Through these measures and others the number of properties worth £2m plus now down to 7,000. mansion tax raised now overall < £250m. Market at top end also plummets and properties worth less.... Some rich folk also re-locate in view of the socialist Govt that has moved in. The lost income tax and spending taxes etc > £2bn per year. Its called the Hollande tax effect.
Comments
The first thread showing that the Labour Party were more “liked” and the second putting the Tories in front in terms of “Fitness to govern”.
The question therefore is what is uppermost in people’s minds when they enter the polling booth next year. The party activists and loyalists can be taken for granted (their votes I mean, not the hard work that they do. Irrespective of which party they support I respect them tremendously – I’ve done it myself for years).
If we only had data going back a couple of decades on these two questions we might be able to see if there was a correlation between the winning party at each General Election. Would that then give us an edge in any betting that we make. Does anyone have any views of bygone elections where one or the other of these measures were clearly apparent?
If you decide that Fitness to govern was the main influence on the majority of floating voters then you should put your money on the Conservatives. If it is Likeability then put your money on Labour.
Of course, anyone that follows my betting tips will soon end up at the Food Banks discussed earlier in this thread (but will also not have to pay the mansion tax – even on a wigwam in Sherwood Forest)
Lib Dems 1/12
Greens 6/1
But no heywood and middleton...
Edit: I see bobajob & bigjohnowls have fallen into the same fallacy.
How on Earth do such sham marriages go ahead without the people even ever living together? The UKBA doesn't even make the most basic of checks.
As a result of ludicrous house price inflation, looked on benignly by both parties, a lot of people are sitting on houses apparently worth silly amounts but with incomes far far lower than might be implied by those house valuations. A tax based on a theoretical capital valuation which has to be paid out of a real and lower income, from which income tax, NI and council tax have already been taken is not a small measure. It's a 4th tax to be paid out of income. People may have no sympathy for those with £3mio houses but they're well aware that they could be next just as they have been for every other measure initially aimed just at the rich.
You could - as Hugh appears to have suggested below - just say that all houses need to be taxed and so everyone is going to have to pay something. At least that would have the merit of honesty.
But to pretend that only a few people owning multi-million £ mansions can fund the 10p tax rate and the NHS is both stupid, dishonest and economically illiterate.
For those with Ladbrokes accounts who don't mind a long term bet
Ukip to get over five seats on Betfair is 3.3 to lay and money queing up to 3.6
Ukip to get five or more is 5/2 at Ladbrokes
So you're getting a better price and need one less seat to cop.
I would tax silver spoons at a very punitive rate especially where found in the mouth of the newborn.
Inherited Wealth is bad would be my start point.
Clearly Mrs BJO does not know how lucky she is that I do not throw things at her when she watches Downton Abbey
The Work and Pensions Select Committee, March 2010, reporting on the LHA introduced by cuddly Labour at a time of unprecedented boom in the public finances:
There is clear evidence that the current LHA rules constitute a real barrier to independent living for disabled people who require an extra bedroom and we believe this requires urgent action from the Department. As a result of the continuing failure to conduct an equality impact assessment and demonstrate compliance with the Disability Equality Duty, the Committee remains very concerned about this aspect of Local Housing Allowance. We strongly disagree with the way in which the consultation on Housing Benefits has put the initial question about this policy and recommend that the Department changes LHA rules as a matter of urgency to allow for reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
Those evil Tories came in to power at a time of equally unprecedented strain on the public finances, and did something about it:
As part of the June 2010 Budget the new Government said that from April 2011 an additional bedroom would be allowed within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person, or someone with a long term health condition, has a proven need for overnight care and it is provided by a non-resident carer. This change affects all private sector claimants (where applicable) and not just those in receipt of the Local Housing Allowance
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04887.pdf
£10,000 PER ANNUM and NET OF INCOME TAX isn't it?
Ridiculous suggestion that people wouldn't look for ways to avoid that sort of tax - especially if the payer is 40p / 45p / 50p tax payer?
No good will follow, we will just get logical limbo/breakdancing to paint every Romanian as a saint and every kipper as Hitler
Lets hope at the very least he isn't a history teacher! God help all the kids who are taught by him.
Genuine question.
(Also, leave Mrs BJO alone: Downton Abbey is Sunday night tosh of a very high order.)
Still I'm sure that if in 2000 Thatcher or John Major suddenly popped up on the news making policy announcements he would have been happy to take their views on board.
Besides which IHT kicks in at £1above the value of my estate
That poses an obvious problem in this case, but as a truthful-by-default person one of the things that most annoys me is when my honesty is questioned without cause, but as a matter of course, and I would not like that to become the norm.
London: 28 Con, 38 Labour, 7 LD
SE: 74 Con, 4 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Green, 1 Indie (Hancock), 1 Speaker
SW: 36 Con, 4 Lab, 15 LD
Eastern: 51 Con, 2 Lab, 4 LD, 1 vacant (Clacton)
E Midlands: 30 Con, 16 Lab
W Midlands: 33 Con, 24 Lab, 2 LD
Yorks: 19 Con, 31 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Respect
NW: 22 Con, 46 Lab, 6 LD, 1 vacant
NE 2 Con, 25 Lab, 2 LD
TOTAL 295 Con, 190 Lab, 42 LD, 1 Green, 1 Indie, 1 Respect, 1 Speaker, 2 Vacant (to compare at the election it was TOTAL 297 Con, 191 Lab, 43 LD, 1 Green, 1 Speaker)
There are 533 seats in England so 267 are needed for a majority.
Con currently have a majority of 28 in England
Looking at Labour target seats on Anthony Wells http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/ and assuming Lab win in Heywood and Middleton:
To win a majority of 1 in the UK, Labour need to gain 68 seats. Seat number 68 on the list above is Norwich North with a majority of 3,901
To win a majority of 1 in England, Labour need to gain 77 seats. Excluding 12 higher placed Welsh and Scottish targets, seat number 89 on the list above is Battersea with a majority of 5,977
Tough but not impossible. Although at the bottom of the list I would say that LD-Lab switchers won't be enough in most seats and some direct Lab-Con switchers will also be needed (or very high UKIP-Con)
Through these measures and others the number of properties worth £2m plus now down to 7,000. mansion tax raised now overall < £250m.
Market at top end also plummets and properties worth less.... Some rich folk also re-locate in view of the socialist Govt that has moved in. The lost income tax and spending taxes etc > £2bn per year. Its called the Hollande tax effect.