On the same principle you should have children for love not to get a benefit. But the howling and wailing from Labour people when this government limited the rights of rich people to receive such a benefit was quite something!
Are you having a dig at poor old Bobajob there???
I didn't mean to. I was affected by the removal of child benefit too. But I didn't make an issue of it because, frankly, when money is tight it should be targeted on the poorest.
But I was amused at the sense of entitlement from those who were well off by any standards at this change. It was the sort of sense of entitlement that reminded me of nothing so much as the attitude of some of our more greedy bankers.
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
The skill in todays speech is just how it reaches out into the middle classes- you can get better hospitals, yes we are concerned about our young and the squeezed middle. The NHS ticks the oldies box too. The beauty is that we can achieve all this without you paying foo much for it, only the millionaires.
The Tories really are easy pickings, I mean they really are. All they needed to do was to find an extra 5 billion for the NHS from the rich. A mere pittance. And then make a huge song and dance about it. But they leave the barn door open for Miliband, and get themselves in an irrelevant discussion about English votes. At this time. At this moment. As if anyone gives a dogs turd about votes, apart from Tories and saddos.
It's too funny. On one side Patterson, Redwood, Hague and Cameron talking about a voting system and on the other Andy Burnham and Labour talking about the NHS and care for the elderly. Well done Tories for not even making the next election competitive.
Cyclefree - apples and pears. CB is effectively a small tax break by the government that recognises the high costs of bringing up children, a vital service to the economy. Specifically, my issue with the Ozzy cock up, as I have explained innumerable times, is the ludicrous marginal rates the CB Tax Charge visits on parents in the £50-60k tax bracket. Just breathtakingly lousy policy making on every level.
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting. Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
These people are evil. They are pure and utter evil. And thousands of Britons are out there fighting for them. We should bring in a new sentence of 100 years in solitary confinement for those scum involved in this.
Cyclefree - apples and pears. CB is effectively a small tax break by the government that recognises the high costs of bringing up children, a vital service to the economy. Specifically, my issue with the Ozzy cock up, as I have explained innumerable times, is the ludicrous marginal rates the CB Tax Charge visits on parents in the £50-60k tax bracket. Just breathtakingly lousy policy making on every level.
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting. Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
Throwing in a bit of rhyming slang for London cred?!
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
We give gigantic tax breaks to well-off people who get married (in terms of IHT and CGT). It seems only fair to give a tax break to those lower down the food chain.
It's funny to listen to rich married left-wing journalists (who'd hit the roof if the spouse exemption were removed) pontificating about the evils of the MTA.
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
Because they will create stable nuclear families that will be the bedrock of society. An inconvenient, unfashionable truth, but true nonetheless.
It's generally unwise to incentivise people to marry when they don't love each other, as this often leads to divorce and family heartbreak down the line. Either a) your incentive will persuade some people on the margin who aren't in love to marry or b) won't persuade anyone, in which case the incentive doesn't work and therefore there is no point having it.
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
Because they will create stable nuclear families that will be the bedrock of society. An inconvenient, unfashionable truth, but true nonetheless.
No, that's fine, but people don't need help to do it. They were able to find marriage financially viable before a tax break, if people care most about making a viable unit they can choose a partner on that basis, not complain their chosen marriage unit is not financially viable enough and make everyone else pay for it.
Signalling, nudge, call it what you want.
It's also another reason so called gay marriage was a cretinous decision.
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
These people are evil. They are pure and utter evil. And thousands of Britons are out there fighting for them. We should bring in a new sentence of 100 years in solitary confinement for those scum involved in this.
Maybe it's time to bring in jus sanguinis. Retroactively.
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
Will you argue for married couples to pay IHT on what they inherit from spouses, as was the case prior to 1972?
Cyclefree - apples and pears. CB is effectively a small tax break by the government that recognises the high costs of bringing up children, a vital service to the economy. Specifically, my issue with the Ozzy cock up, as I have explained innumerable times, is the ludicrous marginal rates the CB Tax Charge visits on parents in the £50-60k tax bracket. Just breathtakingly lousy policy making on every level.
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting. Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
Throwing in a bit of rhyming slang for London cred?!
Ha ha no - apples and pears, as in comparing apples and pears, not as in stairs.
Someone up thread mentioned that the UKIP conference would be exciting.
Is that the Labour plan. To have a conference that was so devoid of any substance that will be forgotten within a couple of days and therefore UKIP looks the exciting party, just before the Conservative conference.
Surely they couldn't be that devious (and stupid) could they?
Cyclefree - apples and pears. CB is effectively a small tax break by the government that recognises the high costs of bringing up children, a vital service to the economy. Specifically, my issue with the Ozzy cock up, as I have explained innumerable times, is the ludicrous marginal rates the CB Tax Charge visits on parents in the £50-60k tax bracket. Just breathtakingly lousy policy making on every level.
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting. Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
Throwing in a bit of rhyming slang for London cred?!
Cyclefree - apples and pears. CB is effectively a small tax break by the government that recognises the high costs of bringing up children, a vital service to the economy. Specifically, my issue with the Ozzy cock up, as I have explained innumerable times, is the ludicrous marginal rates the CB Tax Charge visits on parents in the £50-60k tax bracket. Just breathtakingly lousy policy making on every level.
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting. Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
The logic of your position is that governments shouldn't recognise marriage at all.
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
Because they will create stable nuclear families that will be the bedrock of society. An inconvenient, unfashionable truth, but true nonetheless.
It's generally unwise to incentivise people to marry when they don't love each other, as this often leads to divorce and family heartbreak down the line. Either a) your incentive will persuade some people on the margin who aren't in love to marry or b) won't persuade anyone, in which case the incentive doesn't work and therefore there is no point having it.
Heads you lose, tails you lose.
I would expect financial troubles causes stress in even the strongest marriage, something a married couples allowance would help alleviate.
Marriage for love is a uniquely western ideal, most cultures have arranged marriages precisely based on a material basis.
"Pure envy? Why? If your idea is tax those you dislike, why not come up with a tax on mosques, halal restaurants, veils..."
Selling-particularly political selling- has come a long way since such the days of 'squeezing till the pips squeaked'. Ed has thrown out an idea about £2,000,000 houses.....only a tiny number know what one looks like .....The next step is to identify Russian Oligarchs who have spent ten times that buying up the West End and abracadabra it's the oligarchs who are paying for our brand new hospitals.
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
either Peter the Punter or Peter from Putney advised laying ukip to get no seats at 6/1 on betfair earlier
A better way of doing this is to take 1/4 from Lads or Hills "ukip to win one seat or more"
Incredible price given ukip are 1/20 to win clacton next month
You're getting that seat, which I'd have thought would be 1/5 to retain at the most, plus Farage in Thanet South (4/5), Tim Aker inThurrock (2/1) all thrown into a 1/4 shot incredible bet for those with decent funds to tie up
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
Yeah, I agree, if Labour sources were accurate in byelections, they would have lost all of them. I still remember what happened in South Shields and Labour predictions that it was going to be a close result. The best indicator is the presence of the Labour front bench, Manchester is only a few minutes away by car from Heywood, and yet they show no interest, so they expect an easy win for Labour.
Roger, the same way that it transpires that the only people who pay IHT are non-millionaires, I bet it will not be Russian oligarchs who pay any mansion tax. Any such tax will then exhibit two characteristics: -the threshold will be lowered -the rate will increase
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
I wonder how many NHS Fatcats live in £2 million houses?
"Pure envy? Why? If your idea is tax those you dislike, why not come up with a tax on mosques, halal restaurants, veils..."
Selling-particularly political selling- has come a long way since such the days of 'squeezing till the pips squeaked'. Ed has thrown out an idea about £2,000,000 houses.....only a tiny number know what one looks like .....The next step is to identify Russian Oligarchs who have spent ten times that buying up the West End and abracadabra it's the oligarchs who are paying for our brand new hospitals.
You're deluded if you think any Russian oligarchs will end up paying mansion tax.
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
No NHS employees get bonuses, even the top bosses.
Someone up thread mentioned that the UKIP conference would be exciting.
Is that the Labour plan. To have a conference that was so devoid of any substance that will be forgotten within a couple of days and therefore UKIP looks the exciting party, just before the Conservative conference.
Surely they couldn't be that devious (and stupid) could they?
Cameron will probably recall parliament to see that threat off
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
If we didn't sensationalise this tinpot bunch of radicals every time they did something stupid perhaps they might put their very limited energies elsewhere.
As it stands though, with the media and politicians as they are, I am forced to sleep with a baseball under my bed in case Jihaddi John pops along with his steak knife...... My wife makes me.
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
Crick "For the first time, I am starting to think Ukip could end up with a vote next May above 10 per cent and maybe in the teens"
He's only just starting to think that? My life
I still think around 8% is most likely.
Odds against now... Under 9.5% 6/5 paddy power
The Right have always shown a tendency to get ahead of themselves in wishful thinking. UKIP's time will come, but it'll take at least a couple of elections.
Am I right in thinking Labour's proposed tax on tobacco companies would tax company profits (which includes profits from exports and from sales of other items like e-cigs, which some tobacco companies are moving into) based on UK market share? Would it apply to all companies selling tobacco in the UK (even if the UK formed but a tiny fraction of their global sales) or only to UK-domiciled companies (which would put British firms at a disadvantage to foreign competitors and encourage moving HQs offshore)?
A lot of this seems completely barmy either way but I am not sure to what extent the reporting is full or accurate. I certainly can't make much sense of what I've read about it.
"Pure envy? Why? If your idea is tax those you dislike, why not come up with a tax on mosques, halal restaurants, veils..."
Selling-particularly political selling- has come a long way since such the days of 'squeezing till the pips squeaked'. Ed has thrown out an idea about £2,000,000 houses.....only a tiny number know what one looks like .....The next step is to identify Russian Oligarchs who have spent ten times that buying up the West End and abracadabra it's the oligarchs who are paying for our brand new hospitals.
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
Because they will create stable nuclear families that will be the bedrock of society. An inconvenient, unfashionable truth, but true nonetheless.
It's generally unwise to incentivise people to marry when they don't love each other, as this often leads to divorce and family heartbreak down the line. Either a) your incentive will persuade some people on the margin who aren't in love to marry or b) won't persuade anyone, in which case the incentive doesn't work and therefore there is no point having it.
Heads you lose, tails you lose.
What about incentivising them to stay together after butterflies and afternoon sex has gone and what is left is nagging and stubble in the sink? Society is consistently told that unless you see stars it isn't love. Marriage in the long term (in my unmarried opinion) is more about companionship and bringing up children. Money is a perfectly valid element in that equation and shouldn't be sniffed at.
I do hope that once Labour starts talking about the NHS being safe in their hands, we Tories will just keep reminding the voters of Mid Staffordshire, Cumbria and the other NHS scandals which happened on Andy Burnham's watch. When they talk about local accountability we can remind them about Rotherham.
Wasn't the Simon Labour chap meant to be the subject of love bombing by UKIP according to rumours the other week? Other than poll leads for the Tories this week, his defection would be a fitting end to the non-event Labour Conference this week.
Still can't believe Scottish Labour MPs were celebrating "their" success in winning the NO vote last week when so many of them had a majority of their constituents vote YES. SNP membership now heading for 50,000 and they are all out to get Labour. Met some YESNP business chums today in Inverness and the venom towards Labour is really rather enjoyable.
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
The skill in todays speech is just how it reaches out into the middle classes- you can get better hospitals, yes we are concerned about our young and the squeezed middle. The NHS ticks the oldies box too. The beauty is that we can achieve all this without you paying foo much for it, only the millionaires.
The Tories really are easy pickings, I mean they really are. All they needed to do was to find an extra 5 billion for the NHS from the rich. A mere pittance. And then make a huge song and dance about it. But they leave the barn door open for Miliband, and get themselves in an irrelevant discussion about English votes. At this time. At this moment. As if anyone gives a dogs turd about votes, apart from Tories and saddos.
It's too funny. On one side Patterson, Redwood, Hague and Cameron talking about a voting system and on the other Andy Burnham and Labour talking about the NHS and care for the elderly. Well done Tories for not even making the next election competitive.
Wait for: The Conservative Party Conference Osborne's Autumn Statement Osborne's Budget
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
No NHS employees get bonuses, even the top bosses.
Are you using "bonus" in a sense that excludes "performance related pay"? The Agenda For Change has "flexibilities" for precisely that.
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
No NHS employees get bonuses, even the top bosses.
The naivety of some people:
" the chief executive of Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust, which runs the city's John Radcliffe hospital, received a bonus of between £40,000 and £45,000, while one executive got one of £5,000-£10,000 and six others of between £10,000 and £15,000.
Similarly, the then chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs Watford general hospital and other hospitals, also got a £40,000-£45,000 bonus, while three executives got bonuses of £15,000-£20,000 and one of £20,000-£25,000. "
As I said the other day, people tend to support everything when asked about these type of policies, it puts the favourable polling for EV4EL into some context though.
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
If we didn't sensationalise this tinpot bunch of radicals every time they did something stupid perhaps they might put their very limited energies elsewhere.
As it stands though, with the media and politicians as they are, I am forced to sleep with a baseball under my bed in case Jihaddi John pops along with his steak knife...... My wife makes me.
We must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend. Margaret Thatcher, 1985.
How many million third world immigrants will Labour import to shore up their vote bank (and ISIS strength). Will these houses be pre-allocated to them? Probably.
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
No NHS employees get bonuses, even the top bosses.
The naivety of some people:
" the chief executive of Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust, which runs the city's John Radcliffe hospital, received a bonus of between £40,000 and £45,000, while one executive got one of £5,000-£10,000 and six others of between £10,000 and £15,000.
Similarly, the then chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs Watford general hospital and other hospitals, also got a £40,000-£45,000 bonus, while three executives got bonuses of £15,000-£20,000 and one of £20,000-£25,000. "
I'm not against a mansion tax to help fund the NHS but:-
1. The amount raised will not fill the amount needed so where's the rest coming from? 2. Last year the mansion tax was going to fund a 10p tax rate for the poorest. Has that now been forgotten?
Odd that EdM's big idea on solidarity is to abandon those on the lowest incomes in favour of people like doctors .
The Marriage Tax Allowance will be scrapped to pay for the 10p rate.
Surprise surprise, Miliband doesn't think much of marriage.
I have never grasped why the tax system should incentivise marriage.
You should marry for love, not a fucking tax break.
A relatively new concept. Marrying to form a financially viable unit is not out of line with the reasons for entering the institution for centuries.
Well sure, but why do we need to make it easier for people to form those viable units with a tax break. If that amount will make or break it for you, find someone else so the pair of you won't need the break, or marry for love if you want that instead. Should we give people from rich backgrounds who make themselves less viable, in unit terms, by marrying a pauper, a lump sum payment to make up for this loving, but financially more risky choice?
Because they will create stable nuclear families that will be the bedrock of society. An inconvenient, unfashionable truth, but true nonetheless.
It's generally unwise to incentivise people to marry when they don't love each other, as this often leads to divorce and family heartbreak down the line. Either a) your incentive will persuade some people on the margin who aren't in love to marry or b) won't persuade anyone, in which case the incentive doesn't work and therefore there is no point having it.
Heads you lose, tails you lose.
What about incentivising them to stay together after butterflies and afternoon sex has gone and what is left is nagging and stubble in the sink? Society is consistently told that unless you see stars it isn't love. Marriage in the long term (in my unmarried opinion) is more about companionship and bringing up children. Money is a perfectly valid element in that equation and shouldn't be sniffed at.
I still get afternoon sex, and I'm old enough (judging by your screen name) to be your father. I also still rinse the sink after shaving. Don't be so miserable.
£8 hr minimum wage 68% (16%) Breaking up banks 44 (25) Regional devolution 45 (13) Equal rights for self employed 58 (14) Carbon free energy 52 (18) Apprenticeships=University 58 (14) House building 50 (26) Mansion tax to fund NHS 72 (12)
You forgot:
Owls4All 82% (15%) Unicorns 92% (2%)
Yeah, because paying people eight pounds an hour and having houses for people to live in are ludicrously unrealistic..... for crying out loud.
There's a strong and generally accepted argument that setting the NMW should largely be outside direct political contol, in the same way that interest rates are. Parties entering an "auction" for who will raise the NMW the most is dangerous since it tends to break that consensus. To date, the Low Pay Commissioners have done what most academics rate as a good job in ensuring that raising the NMW isn't accompanied by a rise in unemployment. There is no doubt that people losing jobs or unable to find new ones has a very adverse effect on their finances, family, health, and general wellbeing - it wouldn't take many people to be affected in this way for the utilitarian calculus to be a net negative. I'm not generally a fan of technocracy but I'd rather the wonks were in charge of this one.
I agree with Michael Crick, imo UKIP could actually surge even further in the election campaign next year. Far from people going off them when it's "time to choose the government", I think the campaign will just remind people of what they hate about the two mainstream parties (especially the God-awful robotic soundbites, and the constant slinging mud at eachother rather than talking about their own policies) and make them more determined to give them a slap.
Today's Mansion, is tomorrow's South East Family Home.
We all know where this idea is heading.
Either A) it's affordable and people will pay it Or it's not and house prices will slow down to compensate (I.e. people's budget for the house will decrease)
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Hmmmm am I right in thinking Labour are going to provide devolution equality with Scotland by devolving areas to the regions? Does that then mean that Ed Miliband and Labour are proposing to break up the English NHS?
After all if the North West want free prescriptions but the North East want additional nurses instead how else would it work?
Who'd have thunk it? Labour breaking up the NHS. Go figure......
Today's Mansion, is tomorrow's South East Family Home.
We all know where this idea is heading.
Either A) it's affordable and people will pay it Or it's not and house prices will slow down to compensate (I.e. people's budget for the house will decrease)
You forgot
C) the threshold will be reduced to increase tax take
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
If we didn't sensationalise this tinpot bunch of radicals every time they did something stupid perhaps they might put their very limited energies elsewhere.
As it stands though, with the media and politicians as they are, I am forced to sleep with a baseball under my bed in case Jihaddi John pops along with his steak knife...... My wife makes me.
We must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend. Margaret Thatcher, 1985.
I struggle to believe they can lose a safe seat when they are on 35% on the polls. This is just expectations ramping, I suspect.
There are issues specific to this seat, which make Labour's position weaker than it should be.
Ironically Labour lost adjacent Rochdale whilst in opposition in 1972.
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
In 1972 the biggest problem already of the day was the failure of Ted Heath's economic and trade union policies, also some Labour voters were disappointed by the drift to the left. That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Labour is increasing its support among middle class lefties and urban voters.
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
Not enough in Heywood to overcome the flood of ex-liberals to Labour.
Ed's speech today lacks anything as tangible and specific as last year's freeze on energy prices.
Forget whether it's right or wrong - the energy freeze is specific, easy to understand, and most importantly affects almost everybody directly. Everybody pays energy bills.
Saying you will spend more on the NHS is far more woolly and affects people much less directly.
Everyone already knows Labour likes the NHS. But how will this extra money actually change the care you get? It's impossible to say or even guess - there is no way of knowing.
I think he would have been better to announce the energy freeze this year, much nearer the GE.
Mr. L. The NHS budget is North of £100bn per annum. The additional taxes Miliband was talking about might raise about £2.5bn per annum. An additional 2.5%. How will that change the care you get? It won't.
But it means that NHS Fatcats will be able to afford another round of bonuses. For themselves.
No NHS employees get bonuses, even the top bosses.
The naivety of some people:
" the chief executive of Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust, which runs the city's John Radcliffe hospital, received a bonus of between £40,000 and £45,000, while one executive got one of £5,000-£10,000 and six others of between £10,000 and £15,000.
Similarly, the then chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs Watford general hospital and other hospitals, also got a £40,000-£45,000 bonus, while three executives got bonuses of £15,000-£20,000 and one of £20,000-£25,000. "
I stand corrected. I'd never heard of it, certainly not in the North East. As for AfC, the flexibility is for salaries not bonuses surely?
Have a read-up. Though some people make a fine distinction between "performance related pay" and "bonuses", which is why I phrased my question the way I did. There is even an official NHS Employers guide on how to set an appropriate performance related pay framework:
Sky News are reporting that the wife of Alan Henning has received an audio file of Alan pleading for his life. No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
If we didn't sensationalise this tinpot bunch of radicals every time they did something stupid perhaps they might put their very limited energies elsewhere.
As it stands though, with the media and politicians as they are, I am forced to sleep with a baseball under my bed in case Jihaddi John pops along with his steak knife...... My wife makes me.
Today's Mansion, is tomorrow's South East Family Home.
We all know where this idea is heading.
Either A) it's affordable and people will pay it Or it's not and house prices will slow down to compensate (I.e. people's budget for the house will decrease)
You forgot
C) the threshold will be reduced to increase tax take
Almost certainly, but most likely subtly, via bracket creep.
I agree with Michael Crick, imo UKIP could actually surge even further in the election campaign next year. Far from people going off them when it's "time to choose the government", I think the campaign will just remind people of what they hate about the two mainstream parties (especially the God-awful robotic soundbites, and the constant slinging mud at eachother rather than talking about their own policies) and make them more determined to give them a slap.
Could that be the same Michael Crick as the one who predicted that Scotland would vote yes last week?
Don't say, I didn't warn you. UKIP now 3/1 with Ladbrokes. Were originally 10/1 with William Hill who have now suspended betting. Notice most of the MSM have eventually caught up.
Comments
No details, but that must be absolute torture for her.
From the Labour poster who I consider to be the most incisive I 'll take all all three of those comments- even the last-as a compliment
The Tories really are easy pickings, I mean they really are. All they needed to do was to find an extra 5 billion for the NHS from the rich. A mere pittance. And then make a huge song and dance about it. But they leave the barn door open for Miliband, and get themselves in an irrelevant discussion about English votes. At this time. At this moment. As if anyone gives a dogs turd about votes, apart from Tories and saddos.
It's too funny. On one side Patterson, Redwood, Hague and Cameron talking about a voting system and on the other Andy Burnham and Labour talking about the NHS and care for the elderly. Well done Tories for not even making the next election competitive.
Channel 4 News @Channel4News 7m
Shadow Labour cabinet fears about losing the Heywood and Middleton by-election to Ukip #c4news @MichaelLCrick http://bit.ly/1Cc8Cpr
Marriage is cost neutral or even cost negative if you account for the higher likelihood of cohabiting.
Unless, that is, you count my wife's shoe bill - which we would no doubt have to fund anyway did we live in sin!
I refer you to my post of yesterday evening for the second time today. You must bore even yourself.
http://politicshome.com/uk/article/105219/fco_family_statement_issued_on_behalf_of_the_family_of_alan_henning.html
It's funny to listen to rich married left-wing journalists (who'd hit the roof if the spouse exemption were removed) pontificating about the evils of the MTA.
Heads you lose, tails you lose.
Well done.
How would you feel about a mansion tax threshold of £500,000? That's a figure most could only dream about.
It's also another reason so called gay marriage was a cretinous decision.
He's only just starting to think that? My life
Is that the Labour plan. To have a conference that was so devoid of any substance that will be forgotten within a couple of days and therefore UKIP looks the exciting party, just before the Conservative conference.
Surely they couldn't be that devious (and stupid) could they?
Three hundred years later government debt had reached £234bn.
In the following twenty years a further One point Two TRILLION quid has been borrowed.
Still lets all discuss whether a few million here and there on or off child benefit will save the country's finances.
Marriage for love is a uniquely western ideal, most cultures have arranged marriages precisely based on a material basis.
"Pure envy?
Why? If your idea is tax those you dislike, why not come up with a tax on mosques, halal restaurants, veils..."
Selling-particularly political selling- has come a long way since such the days of 'squeezing till the pips squeaked'. Ed has thrown out an idea about £2,000,000 houses.....only a tiny number know what one looks like .....The next step is to identify Russian Oligarchs who have spent ten times that buying up the West End and abracadabra it's the oligarchs who are paying for our brand new hospitals.
A better way of doing this is to take 1/4 from Lads or Hills "ukip to win one seat or more"
Incredible price given ukip are 1/20 to win clacton next month
You're getting that seat, which I'd have thought would be 1/5 to retain at the most, plus Farage in Thanet South (4/5), Tim Aker inThurrock (2/1) all thrown into a 1/4 shot incredible bet for those with decent funds to tie up
I still remember what happened in South Shields and Labour predictions that it was going to be a close result.
The best indicator is the presence of the Labour front bench, Manchester is only a few minutes away by car from Heywood, and yet they show no interest, so they expect an easy win for Labour.
Any such tax will then exhibit two characteristics:
-the threshold will be lowered
-the rate will increase
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-29334128
At the following election the Conservatives got the most votes but Labour got the most MPs.
The parallels between now and the 1970s keep appearing.
Support (oppose)
£8 hr minimum wage 68% (16%)
Breaking up banks 44 (25)
Regional devolution 45 (13)
Equal rights for self employed 58 (14)
Carbon free energy 52 (18)
Apprenticeships=University 58 (14)
House building 50 (26)
Mansion tax to fund NHS 72 (12)
"You're deluded if you think any Russian oligarchs will end up paying mansion tax."
The object is to collect votes not tax at the moment
Check out the latest from our political cartoonist Matt @Wuerker: http://politi.co/1vdovYy
As it stands though, with the media and politicians as they are, I am forced to sleep with a baseball under my bed in case Jihaddi John pops along with his steak knife...... My wife makes me.
Owls4All 82% (15%)
Unicorns 92% (2%)
A lot of this seems completely barmy either way but I am not sure to what extent the reporting is full or accurate. I certainly can't make much sense of what I've read about it.
How many houses are Labour going to build? How many nuclear power stations?
I think we both know the answer, Hugh.
Wasn't the Simon Labour chap meant to be the subject of love bombing by UKIP according to rumours the other week? Other than poll leads for the Tories this week, his defection would be a fitting end to the non-event Labour Conference this week.
Still can't believe Scottish Labour MPs were celebrating "their" success in winning the NO vote last week when so many of them had a majority of their constituents vote YES. SNP membership now heading for 50,000 and they are all out to get Labour. Met some YESNP business chums today in Inverness and the venom towards Labour is really rather enjoyable.
However, I wonder what the result would be if it was termed 'additional property taxes'?
Tories can stick up for the mansion owners Vs the NHS, and drone on about English votes 4 zzzzz... sorry, nodded off at the end there.
That caused a shift from the Tories and Labour to the Liberals as the natural "their both crap" party, Rochdale in 72 was a harbinger of what was coming in 1974.
In this case the Labour party is increasing in strength from the previous election, not decreasing.
Fair taxes 99%(1%)
Fair taxes meaning of course only the rich will pay. Rich being defined as anyone richer than myself.
The Conservative Party Conference
Osborne's Autumn Statement
Osborne's Budget
" the chief executive of Oxford University Hospital NHS Trust, which runs the city's John Radcliffe hospital, received a bonus of between £40,000 and £45,000, while one executive got one of £5,000-£10,000 and six others of between £10,000 and £15,000.
Similarly, the then chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs Watford general hospital and other hospitals, also got a £40,000-£45,000 bonus, while three executives got bonuses of £15,000-£20,000 and one of £20,000-£25,000. "
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/15/nhs-chiefs-pay-rise-condemned-nurses
Margaret Thatcher, 1985.
How many million third world immigrants will Labour import to shore up their vote bank (and ISIS strength). Will these houses be pre-allocated to them? Probably.
As for AfC, the flexibility is for salaries not bonuses surely?
We all know where this idea is heading.
I also still rinse the sink after shaving. Don't be so miserable.
OK, maybe belay that last bit LOL.
OK, bon! Here is the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for 21nd September (8 polls):
Lab 35.8% (+0.1)
Con 32.1% (+0.6)
UKIP 14.0% (-1.3)
LD 8.1% (+0.3)
Lab lead 3.7% (-0.5)
Changes from first ELBOW from 17th August:
Lab -0.4
Con -1.0
UKIP +0.7
LD -0.6
Lab lead +0.7
A) it's affordable and people will pay it
Or
Its losing wwc voters in the industrial towns.
Now which demographic dominates in Heywood & Middleton.
It's the least they can do.
After all if the North West want free prescriptions but the North East want additional nurses instead how else would it work?
Who'd have thunk it? Labour breaking up the NHS. Go figure......
C) the threshold will be reduced to increase tax take
http://nhsemployers.org/~/media/Employers/Publications/Linking Pay with Performance Toolkit.pdf
Ukip to win no seats 11/2
Ladbrokes and Willhill
Ukip to win a seat 1/4
More on the poll
labourlist.org/2014/09/exclusive-labourlist-polling-shows-public-back-milibands-plan-for-britains-future-and-support-his-call-for-un-vote-on-syria/
Data were weighted to the profile of all adults aged 18+. Data were weighted by age, sex, region and past vote.
Sample size 1,037
Define 'mansion' - Downton Abbey or a West London family house?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead up five to seven points: CON 31%, LAB 38%, LD 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 5%
Britain Elects @britainelects 31s
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 38% (+3)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 15% (+1)
LDEM - 7% (=)
GRN - 5% (=)