I guess the point here is that everyone should have expected unexpected ramifications.
The problems were not unexpected. The government should have listened to the people who were telling them that they way they were setting up the project by splitting it between four big providers was lunacy. ISTR Labour even recognised this in (2009?), and started to move to more local-based procurement.
Instead, they listened to the big business providers, including Fujitsu. That ended well; after Labour cancelled Fujitsu's contract, Fujitsu sued the current government for what could be £700 million. (1)
He said it had been obvious to experts from an early stage that the NHS IT programme, launched by Tony Blair's government, would be a "train wreck" because the contracts lacked clarity, were signed "in an enormous hurry" and contained confidentiality clauses preventing contractors from speaking to the press.
@MichaelLCrick: Ukip: Given "unfortunate publicity ... it has been mutually agreed to bring Mr Bird’s fixed term contract of... to... earlier conclusion."
Edit
The UK Independence Party's general secretary Roger Bird has been cleared of wrong-doing over his relations with former party candidate Natasha Bolter. But Mr Bird has agreed to leave his post early by mutual consent, the party said.
It will not be that difficult for the Tories to win most seats in England if they hold most of the seats they won off Labour and gain some from the LDs to make up for those they do lose
I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.
My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?
''My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970.''
Given that virtually none of Thatcher's legislation was repealed in 13 years of labour government, was her manifesto (until the poll tax) really so right wing??
Lord Tebbitt hits the nail on the head. There is a big difference between 'centre' ground and the 'common' ground.
IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?
Boris.
Perfect LOTO material, he would be good at raising the moral of the beaten troops, he is enough of a consensus builder to start to glue the party back together again, and his job doesn't let him near any of the real levers of power that might scare the horses. He is also erudite and witty enough to run rings around EdM at PMQs. Boris would be the ideal candidate to oppose EdM, and get the CONs back on their feet for 2020.
Every move you make, every breath you take...Polis in Scotland monitor twitter for 'offensive tweets'.
I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.
However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.
Mr. Indigo, not so sure. Boris doesn't, I suspect, travel well, he's too pro-EU [same as Cameron but anything other than scepticism seems a problem] and may still struggle to be taken seriously. Mind you the latter point were raised about him being London Mayor too.
I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.
My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?
Sounds as if Hodges has been on the pre-christmas drinks. He's spent 99.9% of the year telling us, with good reason, that Labour are stuffed and Ed is a complete loser. Now he wants us to worry about next Tory leader. It will be Cameron for many more years.
"Betfair has introduced a new general election market relating to England only. I find it very difficult to see how the Conservatives can win most seats in this part of the UK." - Mike Smithson
Mike, if that was to be the case, you should also find it difficult for the Tories to win most seats in the UK Parliament. Even a disastrous Labour showing in Scotland would still return more Labour MPs than the Tories. In Wales too!
I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.
My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?
I think there are really four main electoral blocs. Social conservative/economically conservative. Social conservative/economically left wing. Social liberal/economically left wing. Social liberal/economically conservative
The fourth bloc is the smallest among the electorate, but the strongest among MP's and opinion formers. Dan Hodges, Cameroons, Blairites, Orange Book liberals insist this is where you have to position yourself to win elections - even as this positioning drives the majority of voters to distraction.
My own view is that the Conservatives *cannot* win an overall majority unless they run from the Right socially, but there is scope for them to move a bit to the centre economically. The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Wasn't that because they uprated previous growth estimates (i.e. we started from a higher point and therefore growth is lower)?
Thats what I thought when I saw the headline but there was no clarification. 0.7%/Q is not at all bad for the UK. It means every 4 years the economy will be getting on for 12% bigger. Is this growth figure now including all the new things added like drug dealing etc
But a lot more people own houses which they'll have to prove are below £2m in value.
Given that prices move down as well as up, could there be lawsuits? Quite a number of them, in fact.
It's all a mess, and the honest way of doing it - more tax bands on the top of the eight current council tax bands, plus a nationwide revaluation - is political suicide.
But it's the honest way of doing it. Another reason Labour are not proposing it is that they want central government to get the money, not the councils. In which case, make it so half the money from the top bands goes to the council, the other half to central government (or is offset against central government grants). That way the council gets money, and so does central government.
Labour's proposal just makes a broken system more broken, although I'm not against the concept per se.
As always, simple is best.
They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)
Bird cleared? Well its Christmas so I will alow myself a little ho ho ho. Cleared of what? UKIPs levels of proberty in the people given responsibility for others in their control is little different from Ali Campbell's. Is he getting a payoff for leaving early if he 'did nothing wrong'?
But a lot more people own houses which they'll have to prove are below £2m in value.
Given that prices move down as well as up, could there be lawsuits? Quite a number of them, in fact.
It's all a mess, and the honest way of doing it - more tax bands on the top of the eight current council tax bands, plus a nationwide revaluation - is political suicide.
But it's the honest way of doing it. Another reason Labour are not proposing it is that they want central government to get the money, not the councils. In which case, make it so half the money from the top bands goes to the council, the other half to central government (or is offset against central government grants). That way the council gets money, and so does central government.
Labour's proposal just makes a broken system more broken, although I'm not against the concept per se.
As always, simple is best.
They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)
Are you saying that would replace the current council banding system? If so, yes, that might be better. But if you mean in addition to the current system, then it's not simpler: it's surely another layer?
What happens if a house has not been sold for thirty years? Surely house price inflation has outstripped CPI and RPI.
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Snap! (See my post just before yours.)
I look forward to seeing NP's answer - assuming he will give us one.
Every move you make, every breath you take...Polis in Scotland monitor twitter for 'offensive tweets'.
I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.
However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.
My understanding is that the tweet produced a number of complaints to the police, if it is the same one that we have in mind. The police were not reported as actually monitoring the ether.
Obviously not Osborne's fault, but it is true that my strategy of moving investments out of dependence on the UK in advance of the election is looking pretty good. Things are going to get worse next year, almost irrespective of the election result, and on some plausible scenarios very significantly worse.
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'? A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments. I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Perhaps MP's who have already trousered and accrued gold-plated pension benefits might have the conscience not to build up any more than say 10 years worth of service and thus save the taxpayer any more largesse on them?
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'? A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments. I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
Economic idiocy hits a new low. You should join the SNP.
Obviously not Osborne's fault, but it is true that my strategy of moving investments out of dependence on the UK in advance of the election is looking pretty good. Things are going to get worse next year, almost irrespective of the election result, and on some plausible scenarios very significantly worse.
Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.
Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.
He's run the economy amazingly well, as the results spectacularly demonstrate. Feel free to suggest another Finance Minister anywhere in the world who has done anything like as well. Of course in doing you will remember to adjust for the starting position, dependence on the Eurozone, shale oil, etc etc.
They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)
Are you saying that would replace the current council banding system? If so, yes, that might be better. But if you mean in addition to the current system, then it's not simpler: it's surely another layer?
What happens if a house has not been sold for thirty years? Surely house price inflation has outstripped CPI and RPI.
Yes, I would reduce council tax + stamp duty, and then use the surplus to reduce the deficit.
This report (Nov) puts the value of UK private residential stock at £5 trillion. A 1% tax on that would generate £50bn per year.
IFS study puts council tax at £28bn. I would fund all the central government mandated expenses (a guess, but let's say £15bn) from this new tax. Council tax would then be funds raised locally for local programmes, and should be at c. half current levels. Stamp duty is another £13bn.
That would leave a net £22bn of additional income from residential property. I'd probably use about £15bn of this to reduce the deficit and the remainder to reduce some economically damaging taxes (e.g. employer NICs)
The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Snap! (See my post just before yours.)
I look forward to seeing NP's answer - assuming he will give us one.
The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.
Sounds good to me. There could always be the option for the owner to provide a valuation from a source acceptable to HMG to reset their valuation if they believe it is getting out of line with the current market.
At the end of 2012 I predicted (to much derision IIRC) that the UK economy would surprise on the upside in 2013, a prediction which was spot-on.
Here's my prediction for 2015: the UK economy will do considerably worse than the financial markets, economists and media pundits currently expect. Although fund managers and economists do mention the uncertainties of the GE, I don't think they have fully taken on board the nature and extent of the risks. Almost no plausible outcome looks good. The risks of a Miliband government hardly need mentioning, but even a Conservative majority wouldn't be great in the short term, because uncertainty over the EU referendum will paralyse investment. A weak government in a hung parliament will be the worst of all worlds
The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.
Sounds good to me. There could always be the option for the owner to provide a valuation from a source acceptable to HMG to reset their valuation if they believe it is getting out of line with the current market.
In SoCal the local government applies that automatically... (as a temporary reduction of the base value used for tax calculation). Although I've just had my rebate removed after 3 years of enjoying lower tax, which was a bit of a shock!
i'm sure that most people have realised that we have site problems at the moment. It is likely that we are going to have to upgrade the server and that might mean periods of downtime.
So, the idea economic growth would continue to at least look ok until the election, allowing the government to campaign on the economy credibly, is pretty much no longer an option right? Arguing they've still done a very good job is going to be very hard to argue when the news is full of talk of slowing down and revisions downwards, and systemic problems.
Fair or not, fighting on the economy looks like it will be a losing prospect ("The other guy will do worse" doesn't seem like it will work when it seems like present lot are doing poorly), and they have nothing else to campaign on that is not controversial and as like to put people off as attract them.
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'? A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments. I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
Economic idiocy hits a new low. You should join the SNP.
The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign, I see the same mantra being repeated daily on this site. Most of us in favour of an iScotland were very realistic that in the short term iScotland would have faced economic challenges. However, in the medium term iScotland, would have succeeded. Whether iScotland would have been better or worse off than rUK, nobody knows.
One interesting interview I did see shortly before the referendum was with Martin Sorrel on Bloomberg, in which he indicated that although he was in favour of the Union, in his view an iScotland would have become the Singapore of Europe. He based this assessment on iScotland’s well educated workforce, scalable infrastructure in the Central Belt, attractiveness to new businesses and it’s diverse economy.
The trade deficit actually narrowed. ''the widening of the current account deficit was mainly due to a widening in the deficit on the primary income account from £8.2 billion in Quarter 2 2014 to £12.6 billion in Quarter 3 2014. This reflects receipts from foreign direct investment falling and payments to foreign direct investors rising.'' lets repeat - receipts from Britain’s foreign direct investment abroad has fallen while receipts on foreign direct investment into the UK had risen. So you are blaming Osborne for success in the UK and lack of success by and in overseas economies.
i'm sure that most people have realised that we have site problems at the moment. It is likely that we are going to have to upgrade the server and that might mean periods of downtime.
I told you that you shouldn't have let people post trailers to The Interview on the site...
The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.
You've been on PB long enough to recognise a deliberate tease! But to respond with the gravity that you seem to have given it: I wouldn't suggest that any particular political party has a monopoly on conscience. I know plenty of Conservatives and indeed some Kippers who I'd see as decent people who might express it differently from the rest of us but who are just as compassionate and caring.
But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.
The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I wouldn't suggest that any particular political party has a monopoly on conscience.
A shame that more on both sides do not share that view, or at least do not refrain from rhetoric deliberately crafted to give the impression they are suggesting just that.
On our economic state, it's basically over for the Tories, right? The idea was that the economy would have recovered sufficiently by 2015 for them to reap the reward for turning things around, or at least that more negative economic news that would make people worry about Labour ruining things would come after the election. That doesn't seem likely, so fair or not fighting a campaign on the economy seems like a losing prospect, as "The other lot will be worse" is not much of an incentive if people think the current lot are doing poorly and are less nice, as risking the other lot holds viewer fears.
And there is nothing else for the Tories to campaign on which is not controversial and as like to cost them as gain them anything.Edit: Wasn't sure the other post had gone through
Checked Twitter and it seems the second Greek presidential vote failed. The third and final attempt will be on the 29th. If it fails, it seems we'll have a Greek General Election.
The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.
You've been on PB long enough to recognise a deliberate tease! But to respond with the gravity that you seem to have given it: I wouldn't suggest that any particular political party has a monopoly on conscience. I know plenty of Conservatives and indeed some Kippers who I'd see as decent people who might express it differently from the rest of us but who are just as compassionate and caring.
But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.
We'll have to agree to disagree, eh?
Well put, Nick ! Excellent !! Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year !!!
At the end of 2012 I predicted (to much derision IIRC) that the UK economy would surprise on the upside in 2013, a prediction which was spot-on.
Here's my prediction for 2015: the UK economy will do considerably worse than the financial markets, economists and media pundits currently expect. Although fund managers and economists do mention the uncertainties of the GE, I don't think they have fully taken on board the nature and extent of the risks. Almost no plausible outcome looks good. The risks of a Miliband government hardly need mentioning, but even a Conservative majority wouldn't be great in the short term, because uncertainty over the EU referendum will paralyse investment. A weak government in a hung parliament will be the worst of all worlds
As I can see in my Sales and Order books, I couldn't disagree with you. It has been a funny year and the uncertainty does not make the first half of next year not very good either.
Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.
He's run the economy amazingly well, as the results spectacularly demonstrate. Feel free to suggest another Finance Minister anywhere in the world who has done anything like as well. Of course in doing you will remember to adjust for the starting position, dependence on the Eurozone, shale oil, etc etc.
I put your defence down to lack of ambition and low standards.
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'? A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments. I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
Economic idiocy hits a new low. You should join the SNP.
The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign, I see the same mantra being repeated daily on this site. Most of us in favour of an iScotland were very realistic that in the short term iScotland would have faced economic challenges. However, in the medium term iScotland, would have succeeded. Whether iScotland would have been better or worse off than rUK, nobody knows.
One interesting interview I did see shortly before the referendum was with Martin Sorrel on Bloomberg, in which he indicated that although he was in favour of the Union, in his view an iScotland would have become the Singapore of Europe. He based this assessment on iScotland’s well educated workforce, scalable infrastructure in the Central Belt, attractiveness to new businesses and it’s diverse economy.
The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign
I was under the impression they had won. But feel free to rewrite history..
Incidentally, as well as the Greek situation being of interest in its own right, if we end up with an election and the possibility of Greece being forced out of the eurozone or refusing austerity then we could get very turbulent economic weather, which in turn would affect both the economy and election here.
As an aside, devaluing the coinage was, with hindsight, one of the final signals that Byzantium had passed the event horizon of doom.
Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.
He's run the economy amazingly well, as the results spectacularly demonstrate. Feel free to suggest another Finance Minister anywhere in the world who has done anything like as well. Of course in doing you will remember to adjust for the starting position, dependence on the Eurozone, shale oil, etc etc.
I put your defence down to lack of ambition and low standards.
His lack of ambition is clearly not as great as yours.
Fk Richard what is GO's fault ? He's runs the economy. If he's happy to claim the kudos for the good things he should own up to the crap of the bad. Facts is as I've been saying for 4 years he's just not up to the job. He's the man most likely to lose the election for Cameron.
He's run the economy amazingly well, as the results spectacularly demonstrate. Feel free to suggest another Finance Minister anywhere in the world who has done anything like as well. Of course in doing you will remember to adjust for the starting position, dependence on the Eurozone, shale oil, etc etc.
I put your defence down to lack of ambition and low standards.
His lack of ambition is clearly not as great as yours.
So I'm following your advice. I'm going to sell my UK shares in January, and pocket (I hope) a modest profit. But where do I reinvest? Where are you investing?
Genuine inquiry. Grateful for your advice.
Obviously I can't give advice, but I can tell you what I'm doing. There are three parts to it:
1. I'm not necessarily selling UK-quoted shares, but I am tilting my portfolio away from businesses dependent on the UK economy, and particularly businesses at risk of being Milibanded, towards companies which get most of their revenue from outside the UK.
2. I'm increasing my relative exposure to the US. Although valuations are a little high there, they aren't ridiculously so, and the US dollar looks well set IMO relative to the pound, which I hope provides some additional protection.
3. Otherwise I'm spreading things around - a bit in Japan, some in other far-east countries. There are also opportunities in the Eurozone but for that I think it's best to use a managed fund with a good manager who can seek out the value and avoid the duds.
As regards timing, I think it's best not to wait. In the New Year, attention will become more focused on what 2015 is likely to bring.
This is not advice, do your own research, etc etc!
A shame that more on both sides do not share that view, or at least do not refrain from rhetoric deliberately crafted to give the impression they are suggesting just that.
Hmm, yes, I accept your delicately-phrased reproof!
Every move you make, every breath you take...Polis in Scotland monitor twitter for 'offensive tweets'.
I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.
However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.
My understanding is that the tweet produced a number of complaints to the police, if it is the same one that we have in mind. The police were not reported as actually monitoring the ether.
Then your understanding is wrong.
'A Police Scotland spokeswoman said "Police Scotland will continue to monitor social media and anyone found to be posting inappropriate comments will be investigated."
A shame that more on both sides do not share that view, or at least do not refrain from rhetoric deliberately crafted to give the impression they are suggesting just that.
Hmm, yes, I accept your delicately-phrased reproof!
Not a personal reproof I assure you - I do not doubt your sincerity on such a thing at all and I resolve to give my elected representatives more benefit of the doubt as I find many, like you, to be very reasonable and fair minded even if their politics are not those I agree with, it is just in the rough and tumble of the leaderships having to attack each other, like a Hollywood Blockbuster designed to appeal to the maximum number of people worldwide, subtlety and complexity goes out the window in favour of the good old basic attacks that are more easily understood and taken in. It's simpler and more effective is all.
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Perhaps MP's who have already trousered and accrued gold-plated pension benefits might have the conscience not to build up any more than say 10 years worth of service and thus save the taxpayer any more largesse on them?
I spotted an arb for some free money on the Cambridge constituency betting with Lib 5-4 with PP and Labour evens with Laddies.It's only a 25% guaranteed return-better than the building society-and you will probably only get £2.75 on but,as the saying goes,every little helps.
Checked Twitter and it seems the second Greek presidential vote failed. The third and final attempt will be on the 29th. If it fails, it seems we'll have a Greek General Election.
ThePressProject EN @PressProject_EN · 8h 8 hours ago Jan 25 most probable election date if parliament fails to elect prez in 3rd round -- via @MegaGegonota #Greece #PtD
Really disappointing balance of payments figures today. We simply cannot go on boosting internal demand by the government borrowing at the current rate, it sucks in too many imports.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business, damn.
Where does govt borrowing 'suck in imports'? A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments. I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
Government spending increases aggregate demand in the economy. I think so far as Labour is concerned that is the point of it all. Our government is spending the thick end of £100bn more than it is taking in taxes. Even putting aside the multiplier effects (which I agree does not really apply to debt interest) that creates additional demand and employment in the economy. But that demand can seep into imports and that, unfortunately, is what is happening. Big time.
I don't share Richard's degree of pessimism about next year. I think the massive boost western countries (except the US) get from low energy prices will set off some of the negative factors he identifies. But it will not be as good as this year and it turns out this year was not as special as we thought. Provisionally.
The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Indeed - and by the same token a mistake many on the Left make is to assume that "Left" and "caring" are the same thing. They are not.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.
So I'm following your advice. I'm going to sell my UK shares in January, and pocket (I hope) a modest profit. But where do I reinvest? Where are you investing?
Genuine inquiry. Grateful for your advice.
Obviously I can't give advice, but I can tell you what I'm doing. There are three parts to it:
1. I'm not necessarily selling UK-quoted shares, but I am tilting my portfolio away from businesses dependent on the UK economy, and particularly businesses at risk of being Milibanded, towards companies which get most of their revenue from outside the UK.
2. I'm increasing my relative exposure to the US. Although valuations are a little high there, they aren't ridiculously so, and the US dollar looks well set IMO relative to the pound, which I hope provides some additional protection.
3. Otherwise I'm spreading things around - a bit in Japan, some in other far-east countries. There are also opportunities in the Eurozone but for that I think it's best to use a managed fund with a good manager who can seek out the value and avoid the duds.
As regards timing, I think it's best not to wait. In the New Year, attention will become more focused on what 2015 is likely to bring.
This is not advice, do your own research, etc etc!
So the earliest anyone could 'fess up to the sin of owning a house which has risen in value beyond some arbitrary figure would be in their income tax return, presumably for the year 2015-2016, due by January 2017. If it's like income tax they'd then have to pay the tax in January 2017, with the option of deferring it (at what interest rate?) if they're not higher-rate taxpayers.
And yet:
“I would like to see that revenue coming in in the first year of a Labour government, before the end of the financial year."
Has he thought this through?
Have you thought it through? Why not ask for the information in the 2014-2015 return, due next autumn and payable in Jan 2016? That would explain why there are urgent discussions going on with the Treasury officials.
It's not as though it was a secret potential tax that nobody had heard about, so it can't really be described as retrospective. People (a) with £multi-X million houses who (b) fret about paying a few thousand and (c) don't have a conscience and (d) had nonetheless planned to vote Labour have plenty of time to consider voting Tory instead. I'm sure it's a key swing group.
Can you explain why you believe someone who doesn't want to pay more tax "does[n't] have a conscience"?
Snap! (See my post just before yours.)
I look forward to seeing NP's answer - assuming he will give us one.
Regional Poll (subsample) Averages - last six polls (ten for YG)
South ICM.................... Con 35 Lab 32 UK 14 LD 10 Grn 6 Ipsos...................Con 35 Lab 31 UK 14 LD 11 Grn 8 Yougov...............Con 40 Lab 25 UK 18 LD 8 Grn 8
South East
Ashcroft:.............Con 33 Lab 31 UK 16 LD 9 Grn 8 Comres (online).. Con 35 Lab 31 UK 20 LD 5 Grn 5 Comres (phone)..Con 33 Lab 33 UK 17 LD 8 Grn 8 Populus...............Con 39 Lab 33 UK 13 LD 11 Grn 4
London
Ipsos…................Lab 41 Con 30 LD 10 Grn 10 UK 8 Yougov…………....Lab 38 Con 32 UK 12 LD 8 Grn 8
I had no idea Labour were running the Tories so close in the SE.
In my ASSS [ Aggregate Sub Samples Surbitonised ] based on Yougov regional samples [ Rest of South ], the Tories are down 7.47% and Labour are up 7.62%. So a swing to Labour of just over 7.5%.
Purely statistically, Labour from 10 seats in 2010 could be looking at 42. Of course, again statistically, UKIP still scores zero whereas in reality they will pick up a few. Green still keeps their seat. It is UKIP which is causing thr Tories serious damage. But the LDs are going down from 23 to 6.
Please note these are aggregate sub samples and UNS. So local factors are taken into account.
But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.
We'll have to agree to disagree, eh?
Thank you for responding. This line struck me - "The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them."
Again you are making the assumption that the only way someone can share a part of their wealth with the society around them is through tax - a very statist assumption - and a very wrong one.
For all you know, people may be giving away a significant part of their wealth. Just because it does not go through the state does not mean that it does not happen. You have to get away from the assumption that the only collective way in which people can do good for their fellow man or woman is by handing over their income or wealth to a bureaucrat who then takes a portion and hands what remains to someone else.
I am not in the slightest bit affected by the mansion tax as currently proposed and have very little sympathy for very rich people moaning about being poor. I give a fair amount to charity but I do not think, for instance, that giving money to doctors - who are not, frankly, poor - a better use of my money (assuming I had to pay the tax) than, say, to refugees from Zimbabwe (a cause I have supported) or to the RNLI, for instance. Or to homeless teenagers thrown out of the house for being gay, another cause close to my heart.
You accept that others are as compassionate and caring as Labour people - but your default assumption is that to be Labour is to be compassionate and caring or perhaps the other way around. You are wrong in that. Plenty of Labour people may be, indeed are - but there is nothing automatic about the link and the self-righteous (I am not accusing you of this BTW) assertion that there is such a link is nauseating. Nor, frankly, is it true from my observation that compassion, care or, even, conscience are correlated with money, political affiliation or place in society. If anything the strongest link is religion.
I had no idea Labour were running the Tories so close in the SE.
It includes London for some of the pollsters.
Actually, the swing to Labour in London is very small. The Tories are down 2.13% and Labour up barely 0.18%. Labour is gaining only Hendon from the Tories but 2 from the LD.Brent Central and Hornsey.
Warning: Purely statistical from aggregate sub samples and UNS. Does not take in local factors.
Comments
Instead, they listened to the big business providers, including Fujitsu. That ended well; after Labour cancelled Fujitsu's contract, Fujitsu sued the current government for what could be £700 million. (1) For people who have not been following it, Computer Weekly's coverage has been excellent from the beginning.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095902/Future-of-NHS-National-Programme-for-IT-in-critical-condition-following-NAO-report
(1): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464002
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30592072
Edit
The UK Independence Party's general secretary Roger Bird has been cleared of wrong-doing over his relations with former party candidate Natasha Bolter.
But Mr Bird has agreed to leave his post early by mutual consent, the party said.
I can only access via Vanilla - main site down for me too.
It usually ends with an unhappy finish.
Dan Hodges predicting disaster for the Tory Party spells great news for... The Tory Party.
They use music from the Undertones...???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11309863/Tim-Bell-my-sort-of-horrible-Christmases-at-Chequers-with-Margaret-Thatcher.html
I don't normally read the Hodges articles but give this a go. I suppose given that Hague, IDS and Howard couldn't win from "the Right" (whatever that means and wherever that is), a Conservative leader not in the Cameron mould can't win either.
My first thought is that it didn't stop either Margaret Thatcher or (in his day) Edward Heath who won on a very radical manifesto in 1970. I doubt any Conservative could have beaten Tony Blair - a Cameron-Blair battle in 2010 is a fascinating counterfactual to consider.
IF the Conservatives end up with 250 MPs and out of office facing a Labour majority Government who steps up to be LOTO for five years ?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2014/dec/23/uk-us-growth-greek-presidential-vote-business-live#block-549936a6e4b0429199373524
Wasn't that because they uprated previous growth estimates (i.e. we started from a higher point and therefore growth is lower)?
Given that virtually none of Thatcher's legislation was repealed in 13 years of labour government, was her manifesto (until the poll tax) really so right wing??
Lord Tebbitt hits the nail on the head. There is a big difference between 'centre' ground and the 'common' ground.
Perfect LOTO material, he would be good at raising the moral of the beaten troops, he is enough of a consensus builder to start to glue the party back together again, and his job doesn't let him near any of the real levers of power that might scare the horses. He is also erudite and witty enough to run rings around EdM at PMQs. Boris would be the ideal candidate to oppose EdM, and get the CONs back on their feet for 2020.
Um.....
There is a world of difference between:
GDP is down (your statement) and
GDP growth is down.....
Can you work it out fir yourself, or is further explanation required?
I read that offensive tweet yesterday, shrugged my shoulders and wondered why someone would want to be to be so crass. Hard to decide which is worse the attitude of self styled Twitter Police, or the actual Scottish Police.
However, some families will be trying to cope with the difficulties associated with the loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with them.
Mr. Indigo, not so sure. Boris doesn't, I suspect, travel well, he's too pro-EU [same as Cameron but anything other than scepticism seems a problem] and may still struggle to be taken seriously. Mind you the latter point were raised about him being London Mayor too.
Mike, if that was to be the case, you should also find it difficult for the Tories to win most seats in the UK Parliament. Even a disastrous Labour showing in Scotland would still return more Labour MPs than the Tories. In Wales too!
The fourth bloc is the smallest among the electorate, but the strongest among MP's and opinion formers. Dan Hodges, Cameroons, Blairites, Orange Book liberals insist this is where you have to position yourself to win elections - even as this positioning drives the majority of voters to distraction.
My own view is that the Conservatives *cannot* win an overall majority unless they run from the Right socially, but there is scope for them to move a bit to the centre economically. The main bar to voting Conservative is being seen as only interested in rich people.
We have now got ourselves in the very unhappy position that what foreigners own in this country earns significantly more than we earn from all UK investments overseas. This means that even strong economic growth benefits others more than ourselves and makes the BoP problem structural.
The balance of payments is, in some ways, a more important problem than the deficit although the two are closely linked. Some progress was made in the early years of the Coalition but we are now broadly back where we started. If foreigners lose their taste for buying cubes of London airspace we could be in serious trouble and suffer a significant reduction in our standard of living.
Never mind, at least we have an opposition who
really cares, is aware of the problem, has some understanding of business,damn.Despite 'running from the right' I can't remember Mrs Thatcher ever being accused of being only interested in rich people.
And this is the mistake many make, that 'rich' and 'right' are the same thing. They are not, as Mrs Thatcher understood perfectly.
Or - as I put in response to NPalmer below:-
"I really resent Labour people like you stating that people who object to a tax or paying more tax are without a conscience. Having a moral conscience is not linked to a party political view of the world. Nor does any one party have a monopoly on morality or conscience.
I could just as easily say that those who outsource their concern for others to the state by paying tax rather than actually doing anything themselves (writing a cheque is so much easier than spending time with a lady with dementia) are lacking in conscience or morality ("by their deeds shall you be known"). But I don't because I don't assume that having a conscience can only result in one particular political view being taken. There are people of morality on all parts of the political spectrum and for Labour to arrogate morality to itself is the worst kind of arrogance.
Thats what I thought when I saw the headline but there was no clarification.
0.7%/Q is not at all bad for the UK. It means every 4 years the economy will be getting on for 12% bigger.
Is this growth figure now including all the new things added like drug dealing etc
They should just put a % tax on all residential property, based on price at last transfer of ownership, and then uprated by inflation each year. Then no worrying about valuations or revaluations, a wider tax base and a clearly progressive system (no bands, but someone with a £100m house in Kensington is paying a lot more each year than someone with a £260K house somewhere outside of London)
Bird cleared? Well its Christmas so I will alow myself a little ho ho ho.
Cleared of what? UKIPs levels of proberty in the people given responsibility for others in their control is little different from Ali Campbell's.
Is he getting a payoff for leaving early if he 'did nothing wrong'?
What happens if a house has not been sold for thirty years? Surely house price inflation has outstripped CPI and RPI.
I look forward to seeing NP's answer - assuming he will give us one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11309903/Pound-drops-as-figures-reveal-unsustainable-current-account-deficit.html
A good chunk of govt spending is interest payments.
I suppose if we had negative growth and falling employment then we would be in a comfortable situation.
This report (Nov) puts the value of UK private residential stock at £5 trillion. A 1% tax on that would generate £50bn per year.
http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-house-value-research-201411249848.html
IFS study puts council tax at £28bn. I would fund all the central government mandated expenses (a guess, but let's say £15bn) from this new tax. Council tax would then be funds raised locally for local programmes, and should be at c. half current levels. Stamp duty is another £13bn.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf&ei=YZ6ZVMWLFMfaoASY1IL4Dg&usg=AFQjCNGVoDnqPeNrzXEbmcyh9UoWupJVyg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cGU
That would leave a net £22bn of additional income from residential property. I'd probably use about £15bn of this to reduce the deficit and the remainder to reduce some economically damaging taxes (e.g. employer NICs)
The purpose of the "not sold for 30 years" is to protect the stereotypical pensioner in the big house. The logic of using RPI not house price inflation is that the government's income should rise in line with a reasonable level of costs: it shouldn't get a windfall just because house prices increase more rapidly.
;-)
Here's my prediction for 2015: the UK economy will do considerably worse than the financial markets, economists and media pundits currently expect. Although fund managers and economists do mention the uncertainties of the GE, I don't think they have fully taken on board the nature and extent of the risks. Almost no plausible outcome looks good. The risks of a Miliband government hardly need mentioning, but even a Conservative majority wouldn't be great in the short term, because uncertainty over the EU referendum will paralyse investment. A weak government in a hung parliament will be the worst of all worlds
Fair or not, fighting on the economy looks like it will be a losing prospect ("The other guy will do worse" doesn't seem like it will work when it seems like present lot are doing poorly), and they have nothing else to campaign on that is not controversial and as like to put people off as attract them.
One interesting interview I did see shortly before the referendum was with Martin Sorrel on Bloomberg, in which he indicated that although he was in favour of the Union, in his view an iScotland would have become the Singapore of Europe. He based this assessment on iScotland’s well educated workforce, scalable infrastructure in the Central Belt, attractiveness to new businesses and it’s diverse economy.
lets repeat - receipts from Britain’s foreign direct investment abroad has fallen while receipts on foreign direct investment into the UK had risen.
So you are blaming Osborne for success in the UK and lack of success by and in overseas economies.
;-)
But yes, I think that people who own multi-million pound houses and expostulate about paying a few thousand in tax are showing a lack of conscience in that respect. How they vote is actually a separate issue (as is whether they spend time looking after people with dementia).The central point is that they are unwilling to share even a tiny part of their wealth with the society around them. Sure, they may have worked to buy it (or they may have just inherited it), and they may have paid tax in other ways, but basically, if they felt part of the society around them, they wouldn't fuss about it.
We'll have to agree to disagree, eh?
On our economic state, it's basically over for the Tories, right? The idea was that the economy would have recovered sufficiently by 2015 for them to reap the reward for turning things around, or at least that more negative economic news that would make people worry about Labour ruining things would come after the election. That doesn't seem likely, so fair or not fighting a campaign on the economy seems like a losing prospect, as "The other lot will be worse" is not much of an incentive if people think the current lot are doing poorly and are less nice, as risking the other lot holds viewer fears.
And there is nothing else for the Tories to campaign on which is not controversial and as like to cost them as gain them anything.Edit: Wasn't sure the other post had gone through
Checked Twitter and it seems the second Greek presidential vote failed. The third and final attempt will be on the 29th. If it fails, it seems we'll have a Greek General Election.
The unionist/BT refusal to acknowledge that an iScoland’s economy would have been viable, was one of the major failings of their campaign
I was under the impression they had won. But feel free to rewrite history..
As an aside, devaluing the coinage was, with hindsight, one of the final signals that Byzantium had passed the event horizon of doom.
#plankton
1. I'm not necessarily selling UK-quoted shares, but I am tilting my portfolio away from businesses dependent on the UK economy, and particularly businesses at risk of being Milibanded, towards companies which get most of their revenue from outside the UK.
2. I'm increasing my relative exposure to the US. Although valuations are a little high there, they aren't ridiculously so, and the US dollar looks well set IMO relative to the pound, which I hope provides some additional protection.
3. Otherwise I'm spreading things around - a bit in Japan, some in other far-east countries. There are also opportunities in the Eurozone but for that I think it's best to use a managed fund with a good manager who can seek out the value and avoid the duds.
As regards timing, I think it's best not to wait. In the New Year, attention will become more focused on what 2015 is likely to bring.
This is not advice, do your own research, etc etc!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30589472
Jan 25 most probable election date if parliament fails to elect prez in 3rd round -- via @MegaGegonota #Greece #PtD
I don't share Richard's degree of pessimism about next year. I think the massive boost western countries (except the US) get from low energy prices will set off some of the negative factors he identifies. But it will not be as good as this year and it turns out this year was not as special as we thought. Provisionally.
Scotland
Ashcroft:.............SNP 47 Lab 22 Con 16 LD 7 Grn 3 UK 3
Comres (online)..SNP 45 Lab 24 Con 14 UK 6 Grn 5 LD 4
Comres (phone)..SNP 39 Lab 22 Con 17 LD 8 UK 6 Grn 4
ICM.....................SNP 36 Lab 31 Con 16 UK 5 LD 5 Grn 4
Ipsos...................SNP 44 Lab 22 Con 18 LD 5 Grn 5 UK 4
Populus...............SNP 36 Lab 28 Con 21 LD 9 UK 4 Grn 3
Yougov................SNP 42 Lab 26 Con 18 LD 5 UK 4 Grn 4
North
Ashcroft:.............Lab 38 Con 25 UK 22 LD 6 Grn 6
Comres (online).. Lab 46 Con 27 UK 18 LD 6 Grn 2
Comres (phone)..Lab 45 Con 20 UK 18 LD 6 Grn 2
ICM.................... Lab 41 Con 26 UK 12 LD 9 Grn 5
Ipsos...................Lab 41 Con 28 UK 16 LD 7 Grn 6
Populus...............Lab 43 Con 31 UK 14 LD 7 Grn 3
Yougov................Lab 45 Con 26 UK 14 Grn 7 LD 6
Midlands
Ashcroft:.............Con 32 Lab 28 UK 23 LD 8 Grn 7
Comres (online).. Con 39 Lab 29 UK 22 LD 7 Grn 2
Comres (phone)..Con 36 Lab 26 UK 23 LD 10 Grn 4
ICM.................... Con 36 Lab 35 UK 14 LD 7 Grn 4
Ipsos...................Con 37 Lab 30 UK 16 LD 7 Grn 7
Populus...............Con 37 Lab 33 UK 16 LD 8 Grn 6
Midlands/Wales
Yougov................Lab 35 Con 33 UK 18 Grn 6 LD 5
Wales
ICM....................Lab 46 Con 21 UK 8 Grn 6 LD 3
Wales/SW
Ashcroft..............Lab 30 Con 29 UK 16 LD 10 Grn 7
Comres (Online)..Lab 35 Con 28 UK 18 LD 12 Grn 3
Comres (phone)..Con 33 Lab 24 UK 17 LD 14 Grn 7
Populus...............Lab 36 Con 33 UK 14 LD 10 Grn 4
South
ICM.................... Con 35 Lab 32 UK 14 LD 10 Grn 6
Ipsos...................Con 35 Lab 31 UK 14 LD 11 Grn 8
Yougov...............Con 40 Lab 25 UK 18 LD 8 Grn 8
South East
Ashcroft:.............Con 33 Lab 31 UK 16 LD 9 Grn 8
Comres (online).. Con 35 Lab 31 UK 20 LD 5 Grn 5
Comres (phone)..Con 33 Lab 33 UK 17 LD 8 Grn 8
Populus...............Con 39 Lab 33 UK 13 LD 11 Grn 4
London
Ipsos…................Lab 41 Con 30 LD 10 Grn 10 UK 8
Yougov…………....Lab 38 Con 32 UK 12 LD 8 Grn 8
Provocative.
Purely statistically, Labour from 10 seats in 2010 could be looking at 42. Of course, again statistically, UKIP still scores zero whereas in reality they will pick up a few. Green still keeps their seat. It is UKIP which is causing thr Tories serious damage. But the LDs are going down from 23 to 6.
Please note these are aggregate sub samples and UNS. So local factors are taken into account.
Again you are making the assumption that the only way someone can share a part of their wealth with the society around them is through tax - a very statist assumption - and a very wrong one.
For all you know, people may be giving away a significant part of their wealth. Just because it does not go through the state does not mean that it does not happen. You have to get away from the assumption that the only collective way in which people can do good for their fellow man or woman is by handing over their income or wealth to a bureaucrat who then takes a portion and hands what remains to someone else.
I am not in the slightest bit affected by the mansion tax as currently proposed and have very little sympathy for very rich people moaning about being poor. I give a fair amount to charity but I do not think, for instance, that giving money to doctors - who are not, frankly, poor - a better use of my money (assuming I had to pay the tax) than, say, to refugees from Zimbabwe (a cause I have supported) or to the RNLI, for instance. Or to homeless teenagers thrown out of the house for being gay, another cause close to my heart.
You accept that others are as compassionate and caring as Labour people - but your default assumption is that to be Labour is to be compassionate and caring or perhaps the other way around. You are wrong in that. Plenty of Labour people may be, indeed are - but there is nothing automatic about the link and the self-righteous (I am not accusing you of this BTW) assertion that there is such a link is nauseating. Nor, frankly, is it true from my observation that compassion, care or, even, conscience are correlated with money, political affiliation or place in society. If anything the strongest link is religion.
And on that teasing note I shall leave it.
Warning: Purely statistical from aggregate sub samples and UNS. Does not take in local factors.
The Greens are hurting Labour in London.