Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody got any by-election news from Rochester and Strood?

245

Comments

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    BenM said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,171

    RobC said:

    It's a nice sunny mild day in Kent but as a general point on R & S it has to be said Reckless who astonishingly achieved 48% of the vote in 2010 in a previously Labour held seat by all accounts was also a fairly good constituency MP and I'd say these factors point the way to this by-election outcome rather than any amount of money spent on campaigning and number of "heavyweights" visiting the constituency. Cameron as the archetypal last minute swatter will find this strategy albeit unavoidable won't win him Rochester.

    The Tories haven't helped themselves here by campaigning on negative Ukip territory. They have fallen into the trap where voters think they might as well vote for the real thing (Ukip) than the lite version a la Tolhurst.

    The betting markets suggest a 10% win for the Kippers will be about a par score. Seems about right to me.

    I hope you are correct - says the man who guessed 9.99%!
  • Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    .
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    like what? that 12billion is probably very efficiently spent in that it involves little admin (or did) and gets spent mainly on kids development or comfort in some form and crucially is spent by the parents not the state
    Dozens. Paying down the deficit, for one. Investment in education, technological research, science, skills, strategic infrastructure...

    If you can't afford to have kids, don't have kids. This welfare is a luxury we cannot afford.
    The trouble is that if there is no child benefit the people who might not then have kids are not the chavs who could not give a chit about their kids (because they will still get 15 times the amount of what they did as child benefit in other benefits) nor the wealthy but the very people who should be having kids (ie the true working class who contribute to the country through labour and would try to raise offspring in a good pleasant way)
    In my experience, people who choose to have kids have them when their peer group do. In middle-class circles, that's at a much older age when (generally) both parents are working and earning.

    Most who don't have kids (give various reasons) but most ultimately seem to boil down to the fact they don't want the lifestyle change. The fact some later regret this, and are a bit sad they never did, is instructive. The benefit makes virtually no difference.

    There was a lot of squealing when this was withdrawn for earners over 50-60k but this has all died down now. People will adjust, and cope.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Cyclefree said:

    BenM said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.
    So no marriage tax breaks?
  • BenM said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    I'm deluded because I don't agree with you on the role of government?
  • Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

    So what? It's your choice.

    It's a public good. We all rely on the next generation.
    That just sounds like special pleading by parents.

    We all relied on the older generation as well.

    I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.

    We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.
    I agree. We would have heard similar arguments about student grants, final-salary pensions and mortgage tax relief. There was special pleading for all of them. Everyone loves a freebie.

    I'd like to see more people standing on their own two feet, and taking responsibility for their own decisions. That way we'll get a much more grown-up and responsible society.

    State spending should be reserved for things the individual and private sector can't do. Internal and external defence is one: Strategic investments in technology, research, infrastructure and business start-ups another. And it's an absolute imperative we live within our means.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited November 2014
    At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.

    Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Pong said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BenM said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.
    So no marriage tax breaks?
    I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."

  • Financier said:

    At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.

    Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.

    fair enough for junk food but its a bit tenuous to say that SKY makes you fat imo!!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Financier said:

    At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.

    Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.

    O Flynn wanted to bring that in for The Kippers but the donors made Nige slap him down.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Yet another police failure.

    Two serving police officers and their former colleague have appeared in court accused of stealing a total of £30,000.

    South Wales Police constables Christopher Evans, 37, and Michael Stokes, 34, along with ex-Det Sgt Stephen Phillips, 46, denied theft charges at Bridgend magistrates court.

    The money is alleged to have been stolen from a Swansea home raided by police in April 2011.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-30132874
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited November 2014
    Corrected : Emily Thornberry is tweeting pictures of white vans. Betting markets haven't responded yet ..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    TGOHF said:

    Ms Tolhurst is tweeting pictures of white vans. Betting markets haven't responded yet ..

    Should they ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pulpstar said:

    TGOHF said:

    Ms Tolhurst is tweeting pictures of white vans. Betting markets haven't responded yet ..

    Should they ?
    It was Emily Thornberry. I may have intended not to be entirely serious.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Cyclefree said:

    Pong said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BenM said:

    Pong said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.
    So no marriage tax breaks?
    I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."

    I get the principle - and I'm not necessarily arguing that marriage tax breaks are a good or bad thing - my point is the very act of policy-making involves social engineering.

    An obvious example is the legal and tax benefits of marriage.

    Should they be withdrawn altogether to avoid social engineering?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Out in the #togetherwevan with @naushabahkhan because #togetherwekhan

    Arf.

    Where is the Lib Dem candidate - Labour are at least putting in a token effort, as are the Loonies. Do the Lib Dems want to be beaten into 7th place or w/e ?
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Financier said:

    At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.

    Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.

    I understand tampons were taxed as luxuries at one stage under that system, which sort of makes you think that feminists have a valid point.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Ninoinoz said:

    Is the 'wonderful wife' bit in quote marks a little catty? Perhaps she is wonderful, and perhaps he wants to say so publicly.

    Yes, and the piece is unsigned.

    Is Mark Reckless expected at Dirty Dicks tomorrow?
    Given his previous track record, isn't there a risk he may already have partied to excess later tonight?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10590725
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    Is Kelly Tolhurst's accent a Medway one? I've known people from that part of the world but I've never come accross one like that before
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

    So what? It's your choice.

    It's a public good. We all rely on the next generation.
    That just sounds like special pleading by parents.

    We all relied on the older generation as well.

    I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.

    We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.
    As a nation we rely on childrearing. The state recognises that public good and taxes those people less as a result.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Child Benefit and tax credit are important. It arrives just when you have a massive increase in expenses and decrease in salary.

    So what? It's your choice.

    It's a public good. We all rely on the next generation.
    That just sounds like special pleading by parents.

    We all relied on the older generation as well.

    I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us.

    We're adults. Let's try behaving as such.
    As a nation we rely on childrearing. The state recognises that public good and taxes those people less as a result.
    What, to combat our declining population?

    Don't be silly.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Pulpstar said:

    Out in the #togetherwevan with @naushabahkhan because #togetherwekhan

    Arf.

    Where is the Lib Dem candidate - Labour are at least putting in a token effort, as are the Loonies. Do the Lib Dems want to be beaten into 7th place or w/e ?

    The LibDems have had one lucky break - Bus-Pass Elvis isn't standing.....

    I also note the full title of the Green candidate - is "Green Party - Say No To Racism". I wonder who that could be aimed at? Might not do them any harm in hoovering up LibDems and Labour voters on the day...
  • Financier said:

    At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.

    Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.

    I haven't heard any of the details about it, but the Danes recently introduced a tax on butter/fat. If you buy food from a supermarket that itemises the VAT paid on your receipt - like Lidl - then it's easy to see that the present rules are a mess.

    I would support a straightforward tax on sugar - though at any sort of meaningful rate it would make my home baking of cakes ridiculously expensive.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014
    .
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    It seems Emily Thornberry is doing her best to steal whatever limelight Reckless may hope to attract in R&S.

    Sadly she has done it by standing on a live (political) grenade...
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    I'm not sold on an asset tax, be it House, Car (is the daily runabout an asset?) jewels, stocks shares, land or pension fund / savings.

    There are multiple reasons:

    Start with houses, then in time other things at lower values can easily be added.
    Houses are often jointly owned, we don't do joint taxation
    There should be a balance against borrowings to fund the asset
    It becomes very complex for numerous reasons
    It is subjective to assess the value of an item prior to sale

    If you accept the premiss that it is both easy and likely that the range of goods subject to asset tax would inexorably increase, then the ability to evade or avoid will be equally increased.

    I understand the concept that taxing assets may encourage them to be invested in productive activity rather than left sitting in the corner gathering dust. However, there are already numerous incentives to invest in new companies and ventures, some of them good schemes and some abused for tax advantage.

    Collection of existing taxes should be better. Evaders should be chased to the ends of the world and given severe punishment. Avoidance should be reduced drastically by legislation to close the loopholes.

    There is an argument to be had about taxation of the capital gain on the sale of an asset. Cost of the asset + index linked increase for ownership period + costs to maintain the asset = total that can be offset against the sale price realised for the asset. Which as it is a calculation opens up mega avenues for abuse.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited November 2014
    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m
    New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).

    EDIT: John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 21s
    @georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.
  • George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m
    New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).

    EDIT: John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 21s
    @georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.

    If it weren't for those rock solid LD to Lab switchers, Lab would be in real trouble.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m
    New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).

    Bizarre to release it now? Is it definitely a new poll? Is this a poll that UKIP were holding back?

    Farage said something about expecting to win by at least 15% - was he basing it on this poll?

    if it's reliable, then the over 10.5% seems decent;

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rochester-and-strood-by-election/ukip-winning-margin
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Cyclefree said:

    If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

    First child per family, or first child per wife?
  • SandraMSandraM Posts: 206
    FTPP: MorrisDancer, according to the BBC survey, I most resemble women in Oman. (I haven't been there so can't say if it is good or bad).
  • antifrank said:

    We need to move from the taxation of income to the taxation of assets. After all, income is a mediocre proxy for wealth.

    We'll get both. If by some oversight you manage to accumulate some assets out of what's left of your income, they'll take the asset as well.

  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

    Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

    I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

    IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!
    From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.
    I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on
    I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.
    What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Pong said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pong said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BenM said:

    Pong said:



    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.

    Rather than incentivise having children, we could disincentivise not having them instead?

    How about a condom tax?
    A shag tax? Taxing single people over 25?

    I don't like it when the government tries to socially engineer society. We need to cut our social security/welfare spend. Child benefit is a good place to start.
    The whole point of goverment f whatever hue is to socially engineer. You're deluded if you think not. Universal education was an act of social engineering!
    That's not the whole point of government. It's what the Left think the point of government should be. The key role of the state is to keep order within it and defend the state from enemies abroad. Everything else is an extra.
    So no marriage tax breaks?
    I repeat what I said below: "I'm in favour of spreading taxes as widely as possible with as few exemptions as possible and, in consequence, lower taxes. Let people decide for themselves what they do with their lives without being distorted by tax impositions, exemptions or the state trying to 'nudge' us."

    I get the principle - and I'm not necessarily arguing that marriage tax breaks are a good or bad thing - my point is the very act of policy-making involves social engineering.

    An obvious example is the legal and tax benefits of marriage.

    Should they be withdrawn altogether to avoid social engineering?
    Isn't it currently the case that if a couple separate, they can end up significantly better off in terms of taxes and/or benefits, and that as a results some couples are separating "for tax reasons" whilst presumably carrying on their relationship unofficially.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    weejonnie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

    First child per family, or first child per wife?
    That would favour faiths and practices where more than one wife is valid. What happens about concubines?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), not only that, the variations in its value are usually not down to the individual. It's entirely beyond the average man's control whether his house's value rises or falls dramatically, and one's house is not an easy thing to change.

    it is indeed an unlucky man to not be able to control his house price going beyond £2 million and therefore ,whilst gaining upteen hundreds of thousands on his house will mean he pays a few thousand in a property tax!!-
    Oh don't be ridiculous!

    I am not affected by the mansion tax. However my income has gone up about two and a half times since I bought my house 25 years ago. My house has gone up in value - allegedly - by much more than that. I do not have hundreds of thousands more as a result of this alleged increase in value.
    From which it follows that, if in the past your income was £10k and your house was worth £30k, and if now the respective figures are £25k and £125k, you must have been undertaxed in the past if a mansion tax is fair now.

    Whenever Labour says "fair" I replace it with "spiteful" and see if the sentence makes more sense. It always does.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

    Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

    I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

    IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!
    From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.
    I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on
    I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.
    What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?

    Power. Physical power. The ability to remove your money with the threat of force - over which it has a monopoly.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    weejonnie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

    First child per family, or first child per wife?
    Each woman gets child benefit for one child - her eldest.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mad of Kippers to hype up an old poll showing them winning by streets - not good for the kipper GOTV operation.
  • Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    Emily finds Rochester hideously white van. Labour's deracinated and dying.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m
    New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).

    EDIT: John Rentoul ‏@JohnRentoul 21s
    @georgeeaton Old Survation poll, George.

    Fieldwork was conducted by telephone from 27-28 October.
  • any exit poll news?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Patrick said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.

    Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.

    I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo

    IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!
    From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.
    I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on
    I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.
    What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?

    Power. Physical power. The ability to remove your money with the threat of force - over which it has a monopoly.
    Or indeed just removing it from your bank account without asking you... works for HMRC
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Union leaders have accepted the first Wales-only pay deal offered to NHS staff.

    The Welsh government put forward a two-year offer which includes a 1% pay rise from next April.

    The deal covering 77,000 NHS staff excluding doctors and dentists was hailed by Health Minister Mark Drakeford as a "credit to all parties"......

    It includes a cash payment this year, the introduction of the living wage for the lowest paid from January, and a 1% rise across the board from April.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30120726

    That is 1 NHS person for every 40 people!
  • Pong said:

    George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m
    New Survation/Unite poll on Rochester: Ukip 48% (+48), Con 33% (-16), Lab 16% (-13), Lib Dems 1% (-16).

    Bizarre to release it now? Is it definitely a new poll? Is this a poll that UKIP were holding back?

    Farage said something about expecting to win by at least 15% - was he basing it on this poll?

    if it's reliable, then the over 10.5% seems decent;

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rochester-and-strood-by-election/ukip-winning-margin
    That's pretty close to my own back-of-an-envelope guesstimate, and reflects the way Betfair has been trading for a while now, albeit in very light trading.

    The Labour vote is a bit higher than I would have expected, and suggests not quite a UKIP rout - but Reckless and Farage would buy 15% right now, I'm sure.

    So would I. My lopsided portfolio will not be embarrassing me just yet, if those figures are right.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.

    The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.

    Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    I feel really, really stupid about this, but what point is the tweet making (and doesn't she know she ought to obscure number plates)?

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Con Gain.

    There's an active UKIP presence there too, I've seen them in Kingston town centre.

    Might be enough for Davey to squeak back in??
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Ishmael_X said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    I feel really, really stupid about this, but what point is the tweet making (and doesn't she know she ought to obscure number plates)?

    To me it looks like she was showing someone who doesn't want any more canvassers to come to their door.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    What is the state of the mansion tax going to be for people while mansions in foreign jurisdictions I wonder, mansion tax on a few billionaires islands might raise a few quid.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    AlbieF said:

    any exit poll news?

    Verboten bis 22h00.

  • TGOHF said:

    Mad of Kippers to hype up an old poll showing them winning by streets - not good for the kipper GOTV operation.

    Hmmm...depends why they've done it.

    Might suggest they are confident. They are sure to have private polling that is much more recent and if their GOTV op is going ok, and they think they're going to beat 15%, why not release it.

    If only I could get on with Skybet..... Grrrrr!
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2014
    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    It's a terrible indictment of the detached tory party, snobbish and sneering - yes it's not to my taste - but as a Tory you can't be pompous like that, sometimes the tory arrogance is a real achilles heel.

    Too many tweets make a ....
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Roger said:

    Is Kelly Tolhurst's accent a Medway one? I've known people from that part of the world but I've never come accross one like that before

    Yes.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited November 2014

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Everyone talks about Child Benefit but it is Child Tax Credits that are the huge payer.

    8 million households get Child Benefit.

    4 million households get Child Tax Credits.

    And those 4 million households get, on average, just over £100 per week of Child Tax Credits. They then, of course, also get Child Benefit on top.

    So Child Tax Credits are not just being paid to very poor people. They are being paid to 50% of people with children. And they are massive.

    And they are not a "tax credit" in the sense of a reduction of tax paid. Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-live

    Not much. But it is dreadfully easy to read into it a sneering just stepped in dogshit attitude towards the WWC from Thornberry from it.

    Like the Parris piece on Clacton, in a picture.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
    Picture of a white van on a car-port with three Union flags hanging from the windows of the house.

    "Welcome to Rochester". presumably a dig a 'white-van-man' - those who have deserted Labour for UKIP.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    What does it say?

    Nothing. It is a photo.

    But when you see it, you will get it.
  • Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.



  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    Cyclefree said:

    Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.

    The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.

    Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.

    I agree completely, but then I am not sitting on my sofa playing on a xbox while someone else it out at work paying for it.

    Re your last sentence, I am not sure the Treasury would agree,

    Sir Humphrey: "Taxation isn't about what you need."
    Jim Hacker: "Oh, what is it about?"
    Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, the Treasury doesn't work out what they need to spend and then think how to raise the money."
    Jim Hacker: "What does it do?"
    Sir Humphrey: "They pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and then think what to spend it on."
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Cyclefree said:

    weejonnie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    If child benefit is paid at all, it should be paid only for the first child, generously, if possible, and to the mother. There's an argument for saying that it should be paid only for the first 5 years of the child's life. And also an argument for taxing it.

    First child per family, or first child per wife?
    Each woman gets child benefit for one child - her eldest.
    You didn't appreciate the sarcasm - think about it.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Perhaps Ms Thornberry is a West Ham fan ?
  • Cyclefree said:

    Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.

    The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.

    Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.

    Absolutely right on every point.

    We also need a welfare system that acts as a safety net and nothing more. The idea that the state should pay people benefits to raise their standard of living above the basic minimum is abhorrent. As such, the idea that people should then be taxed on their benefits - indicating they are getting more than the basic safety net - is ludicrous.

    I am sure most people are very glad I will never get within a million miles of any political power but if I did the first immediate act I would try to take would be to remove any and all government handouts from anyone earning more than the average income. Then I could start working down from there.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    impartial said:

    Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.

    If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.

    And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.
  • Apologies on the poll - as per the edit that's an old poll.

    It's come to something when Labour MPs are getting pwned by the Sunday Sport:

    Sunday Sport @thesundaysport ·
    @EmilyThornberry Hold on love. Are you a Labour MP or Hyacinth Bucket?

    https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/535457793609060353
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Thornberry has obviously had a cheeky tenner on UKIP gain Newham !
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    weejonnie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
    Picture of a white van on a car-port with three Union flags hanging from the windows of the house.

    "Welcome to Rochester". presumably a dig a 'white-van-man' - those who have deserted Labour for UKIP.
    Chances are the flags were left up from the england game on tuesday night.

    Unless someone bothers to knock on the door, we'll never know...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour MP Emily Thornberry has tweeted a photo of a house in Rochester adorned with English flags and a white van on the drive.

    What point was she trying to make?
  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    rcs1000 said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    The Total Fertility Ratio is the UK is well below 2.1. So, you would have a growing number of old people supported by a diminishing number of young people. If you want to see how disastrous that is economically, look at Japan or Italy.
    Fortunately, we have the option of immigration, which means that we can import the young people at an economically useful age without having to go through the expensive bit of raising them. It's worked really well so far.
    I got my first payday loan at the beginning of this month. That's worked really well so far, too.

    Congratulations on possibly the worst pb analogy of the year.
    Your imported youngsters contribute (in the best case scenario) for a bit. On a future date, partly ascertainable in each individual case (because we can forecast retirement but not illness/unemployment), we pay back more than we were paid in the first place. Can't see the flaw in the analogy myself.

    No, I'm sure you can't. Perhaps you should think about it a bit. There are multiple flaws in your analysis.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    weejonnie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
    Picture of a white van on a car-port with three Union flags hanging from the windows of the house.

    "Welcome to Rochester". presumably a dig a 'white-van-man' - those who have deserted Labour for UKIP.
    Not Union, St George.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:

    twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/535450556199075840
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    AndyJS said:

    Labour MP Emily Thornberry

    The kind of MP that is a gift to UKIP and the SNP.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Is Heaver a lurker here ^_~ ?
    Pulpstar said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    taffys said:

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    Has one tweet ever summed up the current Labour party's attitude to their WWC vote so well as that one ?
    What does it say?
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2014/nov/20/polls-rochester-strood-byelection-mark-reckless-ukip-live

    Not much. But it is dreadfully easy to read into it a sneering just stepped in dogshit attitude towards the WWC from Thornberry from it.

    Like the Parris piece on Clacton, in a picture.
    Michael Heaver ‏@Michael_Heaver 3m3 minutes ago
    Combo of Emily Thornberry/Matthew Parris straddling both establishment parties perfectly illustrates why purple alternative has sprung up.
  • Socrates said:

    impartial said:

    Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.

    If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.

    And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.
    the latest poll is nearly as old as you!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    BenM said:

    Roger said:

    Is Kelly Tolhurst's accent a Medway one? I've known people from that part of the world but I've never come accross one like that before

    Yes.
    Surely that's not how people in the Medway area used to speak a few decades ago? It's been influenced by estuary English from Essex and east London.
  • UKIP have now been backed off the board in the Betfair straight win market.
  • MikeL said:

    Pong said:

    chestnut said:

    Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.

    Both taxes are awfully designed.

    Agreed.

    It's crazily bureaucratic now.

    The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.

    They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
    Why can't we just scrap it entirely?

    Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
    Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?

    I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
    I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.

    I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
    Everyone talks about Child Benefit but it is Child Tax Credits that are the huge payer.

    8 million households get Child Benefit.

    4 million households get Child Tax Credits.

    And those 4 million households get, on average, just over £100 per week of Child Tax Credits. They then, of course, also get Child Benefit on top.

    So Child Tax Credits are not just being paid to very poor people. They are being paid to 50% of people with children. And they are massive.

    And they are not a "tax credit" in the sense of a reduction of tax paid. Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
    I find it staggering that a family can have an income of £58,000 a year and still get handouts from the government. Small admittedly (£545 a year) but still ludicrous.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:

    ''too many white working class people''
  • Socrates said:

    impartial said:

    Transporting voters in R ans S this evening. Chatting to colleagues who have been here all day. They report blue camp quite cheerful and also confirm what I found earlier this week that many Kippers intend to vote Blue at GE.

    If the latest poll is true, you'd need quite a big chunk to do that.

    And that's if they don't realise they actually like Reckless more when he can stand up and talk more freely in parliament.
    Most say the nightmare is Ed by default
  • Cyclefree said:

    Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.

    The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.

    Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.

    Absolutely right on every point.

    We also need a welfare system that acts as a safety net and nothing more. The idea that the state should pay people benefits to raise their standard of living above the basic minimum is abhorrent. As such, the idea that people should then be taxed on their benefits - indicating they are getting more than the basic safety net - is ludicrous.

    I am sure most people are very glad I will never get within a million miles of any political power but if I did the first immediate act I would try to take would be to remove any and all government handouts from anyone earning more than the average income. Then I could start working down from there.
    Not just you. I suggested that welfare spending was far too high on Facebook yesterday, and would do something similar, and my socialist friends all went ballistic, and started 'liking' each other's responses.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    UKIP have now been backed off the board in the Betfair straight win market.

    You can still get 1-41 at Unibet and 1-100 generally.

    Anyone who has backed the Tories heavily should perhaps consider rescuing that penny in the pound !
  • AndyJS said:

    Thornberry's tweet which explains why her party isn't going to win Rochester today:

    twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/535450556199075840

    To be fair, there are now many in the Conservative party who think the same. Although Labour has the worst of it in terms of despising their own people.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Tories are so bigoted a Labour MP is not allowed to tweet photos on the campaign trail.

    A look at Emily Thornberry's feed show's she's been tweeting a few photos today.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    That Sunday Sport tweet is delicious.

    A Tory win today would be bloody amazing, but totally unlikely. Will enjoy settling down with a case of Blue Nun for the by-election special.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.

    It's a terrible indictment of the detached tory party, snobbish and sneering - yes it's not to my taste - but as a Tory you can't be pompous like that, sometimes the tory arrogance is a real achilles heel.

    Too many tweets make a ....

    Has Emily Thornberry defected to the Tories? Er, no thanks...!

    The Islington bunker mind-set writ large.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Old Holborn @Holbornlolz
    @WikiGuido @EmilyThornberry Culture shock after leaving Islington for an hour. "Where is the humous and organic falafals?"

    Giggle.
  • Why is Emily Thornberry MP trending on Twitter?

    *Innocent Face*
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    chestnut said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour MP Emily Thornberry

    The kind of MP that is a gift to UKIP and the SNP.
    Who is Janice Atkinson MEP a gift to?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    MikeL said:

    Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.

    Children are expensive.
  • Indigo said:

    Old Holborn @Holbornlolz
    @WikiGuido @EmilyThornberry Culture shock after leaving Islington for an hour. "Where is the humous and organic falafals?"

    Giggle.

    I'm one of Ms Thornberry's constituents. I had hummus for lunch today and I pondered about organic falafels as well.

    #teamislington
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    RobD said:

    That Sunday Sport tweet is delicious.

    A Tory win today would be bloody amazing, but totally unlikely. Will enjoy settling down with a case of Blue Nun for the by-election special.

    Bradford was a shock result, but not to those who had been reading the betting runes.

    When was the last truly shocking by-election declaration? It was so far back it was probably a LibDem win!

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @tnewtondunn: A prediction: @EmilyThornberry will "clarify" what she meant by her England flags/white van tweet from #Rochester within the hour.

    And she has done...

    @MrHarryCole: Wow! RT @TomMcTague: Emily Thornberry tells MailOnline: ‘It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before.'

    @MrHarryCole: Get her a spade RT @mattholehouse: "My point is that it's a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There's three of them."
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2014
    Emily Thornberry's tweet mocking white van man on the day of a by-election has to rank as of the most stupid moves by a senior politician for many years.

    I feel a bit sorry for Ms Khan, the Labour candidate in Rochester.
This discussion has been closed.