Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
You could, of course, say the same about every LibDem by-election gain of the last 40 years.
And they lost - what - around half of them at the subsequent general election.
I bet on the Conservatives when they were courtesy of isam and PtP on better than evens. I've hedged that out on Betfair now, and am (very slightly) more on UKIP than the Conservatives, but if it gets back to evens, I'm back on the Tories...
Agreed - this is one where you'd be a fool to bet on either party at odds on imo.
Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.
If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.
The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.
They should consult with Betfairs Premium Charge enforcers, who have to be the best tax enforcers in the country. :-)
George Osborne has been asking business leaders for anti-Labour quotes.The man in the Boots debacle has said that his quotes have been taken out of context, devious Gideon Osborne again.
Impressive. Stefano sits down with a Telegraph journalist. Journalist records his comments and writes story.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
Is BJO leveraging debt and milking the NHS to enrich himself while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds in corporation tax? Wow!
No, he's working the system so that he obtains maximum benefit from it. If he cared as much about the NHS as he says, he would still be working in it as by doing so he would be saving the NHS a lot of money. He has taken early pension, which if I read it correctly will be approx half salary, if he had carried on working, he would effectively be doing it for half of the cost of somebody else in that post as there would be no pension payment to make.
Hypocrisy does not require the sums to be equal, just the outcome.
"It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner."
Correct. But Labour now have to follow up. Salmond did it brilliantly in the referendum campaign by turning the bedroom tax into something emblematic.
Labour have to do the same. They have to turn these gifts into a narrative which becomes a national campaign. If there's one thing we've learnt from Scotland it's that there's a sense of injustice out there and with Cameron and Osborne at the helm it's easily directable.
And potentially much more effective than Miliband and his funny faces in my opinion.
@PopulusPolls: Updated Populus VI Methodology: Populus has started prompting for UKIP in the primary list of political parties. See http://t.co/s9sU0OEqcW
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
So your analogy doesn't work.
You can reclaim VAT paid on goods/services received.
That is not 'most of your costs'.
So you're agree, VAT isn't a turnover tax.
It's a tax on sales revenue. If you can see a difference between that and turnover you've beaten me.
I charge VAT to my customers. I then deduct any VAT that I have payed out and pass the remaining VAT to HMRC. It is not a charge on my revenue as such as I pass the cost on to my customers (who in turn off set it against any VAT that they have payed).
A revenue tax would not be offset-able and would discourage high volume business in favour of low volume high value business models.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Worth noting that it was Labour which introduced tax breaks for film investment, into which all the luvvies poured their money. And it is the Tories who are challenging such companies by claiming that they are little more than tax avoidance schemes.
Had Labour not made the tax code so complicated there would be fewer loopholes around for companies and others to exploit - at the expense of the rest of us.
Tbh I never really understood the film investment schemes. At least some of the films did seem to get made.
James Dyson told of his call for R&D tax breaks being turned down by politicians because it would lead companies to fund research simply to pay less tax. "That's the point."
@Cyclefree: I thought Mrs Thatcher - in a rare moment of weakness - kicked the whole UK film subsidy thing off after being browbeaten by the bloke with a big beard...
@Cyclefree: I thought Mrs Thatcher - in a rare moment of weakness - kicked the whole UK film subsidy thing off after being browbeaten by the bloke with a big beard...
@Cyclefree: I thought Mrs Thatcher - in a rare moment of weakness - kicked the whole UK film subsidy thing off after being browbeaten by the bloke with a big beard...
George Osborne has been asking business leaders for anti-Labour quotes.The man in the Boots debacle has said that his quotes have been taken out of context, devious Gideon Osborne again.
That might explain why the Telegraph said there were no details of which particular Labour policies he opposed.
The point that's in danger of being lost in the froth about Pessina is that, even amongst people like me, who are not natural Labour supporters and who are likely to be hit hard by whatever policies Labour does implement, there is a resentment at people who have done extraordinarily well, who pay little or no tax exploiting all sorts of loopholes (no doubt legally) which are not available to the rest of us and who are largely insulated from the consequences of bad governments.
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
If I ran a bookie that made exactly 0 profit, turnover tax would mean I (effectively) make a loss. [I don't think VAT affects bookies].
Yes, but sales revenue and turnover are the same thing.
But with VAT you can reclaim most of your costs as a business. As you're not paying over just the turnover element, you're reducing it by offsetting your costs.
So your analogy doesn't work.
You can reclaim VAT paid on goods/services received.
That is not 'most of your costs'.
So you're agree, VAT isn't a turnover tax.
It's a tax on sales revenue. If you can see a difference between that and turnover you've beaten me.
I charge VAT to my customers. I then deduct any VAT that I have payed out and pass the remaining VAT to HMRC. It is not a charge on my revenue as such as I pass the cost on to my customers (who in turn off set it against any VAT that they have payed).
A revenue tax would not be offset-able and would discourage high volume business in favour of low volume high value business models.
Daemon's right, if I understand the disagreement properly.
Under VAT, a business that buys 100 items at £19 and sells them at £20 pays VAT on £100. This is the same a business that buys one item at £1 and sells it for £101, which makes sense because both sellers are leaving £100 better off before tax.
If we were taxing their sales revenue the first person would be taxed on £2000 whereas the second only £101.
The boss of, say, Next, attacking Labour would be damaging. A UK resident retail business and a eurosceptic to boot.
An attack by an offshore resident boss of a business itself moved offshore is, conversely, a gift.
And Labour have played a blinder in response.
It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner.
@PopulusPolls: Updated Populus VI Methodology: Populus has started prompting for UKIP in the primary list of political parties. See http://t.co/s9sU0OEqcW
They didn't before ?!
Populus unweighted has been absolubtely STUFFED full of Kippers all fricking parliament.
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if UKIP could hit 20 or so % come the GE.
George Osborne has been asking business leaders for anti-Labour quotes.The man in the Boots debacle has said that his quotes have been taken out of context, devious Gideon Osborne again.
Impressive. Stefano sits down with a Telegraph journalist. Journalist records his comments and writes story.
And it's all Osborne's fault!
The Telegraph said there were no complaints about any particular Labour policies, which suggests some third party had master strategised them together for what would otherwise be a non-story.
George Osborne might, of course, be aiming the mood music not at voters but at donors.
@Cyclefree: I thought Mrs Thatcher - in a rare moment of weakness - kicked the whole UK film subsidy thing off after being browbeaten by the bloke with a big beard...
You may be right. I do know that Brown did do some clever stuff with film investment which resulted in the establishment of some of the companies now being challenged by HMRC.
The point that's in danger of being lost in the froth about Pessina is that, even amongst people like me, who are not natural Labour supporters and who are likely to be hit hard by whatever policies Labour does implement, there is a resentment at people who have done extraordinarily well, who pay little or no tax exploiting all sorts of loopholes (no doubt legally) which are not available to the rest of us and who are largely insulated from the consequences of bad governments.
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
Leaving aside the wisdom or not of attacking Boots I must say I had some sympathy with Labour's response to Pessina's comments i.e. that a tax exile living in Monaco may not have the best view of what's best for Britain.
If Labour do form a government, it will be taxpayers here who bear the brunt not those who neither live nor vote here.
The tax antics of Boots, Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc show why we need some sort of viable turnover tax. It should be a priority at the Treasury, whatever the colour of the government. Having paid my Self Assessment this weekend, I get annoyed at these shysters that pay next to nothing.
They should consult with Betfairs Premium Charge enforcers, who have to be the best tax enforcers in the country. :-)
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
Worth noting that it was Labour which introduced tax breaks for film investment, into which all the luvvies poured their money. And it is the Tories who are challenging such companies by claiming that they are little more than tax avoidance schemes.
Had Labour not made the tax code so complicated there would be fewer loopholes around for companies and others to exploit - at the expense of the rest of us.
Tbh I never really understood the film investment schemes. At least some of the films did seem to get made.
James Dyson told of his call for R&D tax breaks being turned down by politicians because it would lead companies to fund research simply to pay less tax. "That's the point."
The Good Lady Wifi is something of an expert on film financing. She operates through EIS schemes. She has long said the schemes that the likes of Ingenious Media were promoting would end in tears....
Looks like Cameron's catastrophic Libyan adventure was, like Iraq, justified using faulty and cherry picked intelligence. I have absolute confidence the media will investigate this.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
You could, of course, say the same about every LibDem by-election gain of the last 40 years.
And they lost - what - around half of them at the subsequent general election.
I bet on the Conservatives when they were courtesy of isam and PtP on better than evens. I've hedged that out on Betfair now, and am (very slightly) more on UKIP than the Conservatives, but if it gets back to evens, I'm back on the Tories...
I guess squabbling over an event 3 months from now is futile, but your point about the Libs is pertinent, they have learned how to target and win winnable seats, their national % is irrelevant. Ukip have learned from that and will throw all of their resources at a number of seats they believe they can win, R&S being one.
Looks like Cameron's catastrophic Libyan adventure was, like Iraq, justified using faulty and cherry picked intelligence. I have absolute confidence the media will investigate this.
You do a pretty good impersonation of Polly Toynbee.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
Well yes, of course it's a "key target" ..... it's one of only 4 or 5 seats UKIP has any realistic chance of winning.
The point that's in danger of being lost in the froth about Pessina is that, even amongst people like me, who are not natural Labour supporters and who are likely to be hit hard by whatever policies Labour does implement, there is a resentment at people who have done extraordinarily well, who pay little or no tax exploiting all sorts of loopholes (no doubt legally) which are not available to the rest of us and who are largely insulated from the consequences of bad governments.
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
Considering they are so wealthy, the super rich have really shit PR. They should invest in some poster sites. The rich and famous in portrait - their net wealth, how much they have paid in tax in the past say 5 years set out below. Strapline: "rich and proud - to pay for the NHS." Roger?
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
Well yes, of course it's a "key target" ..... it's one of only 4 or 5 seats UKIP has any realistic chance of winning.
That's an opinion but its not shared by ukip. Interestingly which are the 4 or 5 iyo?
The point that's in danger of being lost in the froth about Pessina is that, even amongst people like me, who are not natural Labour supporters and who are likely to be hit hard by whatever policies Labour does implement, there is a resentment at people who have done extraordinarily well, who pay little or no tax exploiting all sorts of loopholes (no doubt legally) which are not available to the rest of us and who are largely insulated from the consequences of bad governments.
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
Considering they are so wealthy, the super rich have really shit PR. They should invest in some poster sites. The rich and famous in portrait - their net wealth, how much they have paid in tax in the past say 5 years set out below. Strapline: "rich and proud - to pay for the NHS." Roger?
Good information which would be made better and more relevant if tax paid is set against income so we can see the effective rate and compare it to our own.
@PopulusPolls: Updated Populus VI Methodology: Populus has started prompting for UKIP in the primary list of political parties. See http://t.co/s9sU0OEqcW
It'll be interesting to see if that causes them to fall.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
You could, of course, say the same about every LibDem by-election gain of the last 40 years.
And they lost - what - around half of them at the subsequent general election.
I bet on the Conservatives when they were courtesy of isam and PtP on better than evens. I've hedged that out on Betfair now, and am (very slightly) more on UKIP than the Conservatives, but if it gets back to evens, I'm back on the Tories...
I guess squabbling over an event 3 months from now is futile, but your point about the Libs is pertinent, they have learned how to target and win winnable seats, their national % is irrelevant. Ukip have learned from that and will throw all of their resources at a number of seats they believe they can win, R&S being one.
The best-case scenario for the Tories would be to regain Rochester and Strood, and for UKIP to take Great Grimsby from Labour. It would scare off potential future defectors. It would put the fear of UKIP into Labour. It would change the media narrative about UKIP to the benefit of the Conservatives.
So I think they have to put a lot of effort into Rochester and Strood, and they'd far rather tie up national UKIP resources there, than in other Tory-held seats. However, I don't believe that TSE will be going down to canvass. He promised that for the by-election and then backed out.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
Is BJO leveraging debt and milking the NHS to enrich himself while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds in corporation tax? Wow!
No, he's working the system so that he obtains maximum benefit from it. If he cared as much about the NHS as he says, he would still be working in it as by doing so he would be saving the NHS a lot of money. He has taken early pension, which if I read it correctly will be approx half salary, if he had carried on working, he would effectively be doing it for half of the cost of somebody else in that post as there would be no pension payment to make.
Hypocrisy does not require the sums to be equal, just the outcome.
Of course thats why I am declining offers of £600-£700 per day made frequently by ex colleagues on a regular basis.
I am not prepared to rip the NHS off for these amounts even though undoubtbly they will end up paying this sort of amount to someone anyway. In fact the only couple work I have undertaken in the last 10 months have been at about one tenth of market value ie expenses as a favour to the NHS.
Dont judge people by Tory PB Standards. Lansley has broken the Acute Healthcare sector. Besides I am busy between now and May getting EICIPM elected.
Arent most PB Tories stuffing taxpayers money into Granny Bonds as we speak?
@PopulusPolls: Updated Populus VI Methodology: Populus has started prompting for UKIP in the primary list of political parties. See http://t.co/s9sU0OEqcW
It'll be interesting to see if that causes them to fall.
Only part in jest.
It is possible, since non-kippers will of necessity also be reminded to vote (or at least declare a preference) against UKIP.
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
Is BJO leveraging debt and milking the NHS to enrich himself while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds in corporation tax? Wow!
No, he's working the system so that he obtains maximum benefit from it. If he cared as much about the NHS as he says, he would still be working in it as by doing so he would be saving the NHS a lot of money. He has taken early pension, which if I read it correctly will be approx half salary, if he had carried on working, he would effectively be doing it for half of the cost of somebody else in that post as there would be no pension payment to make.
Hypocrisy does not require the sums to be equal, just the outcome.
Of course thats why I am declining offers of £600-£700 per day made frequently by ex colleagues on a regular basis.
I am not prepared to rip the NHS off for these amounts even though undoubtbly they will end up paying this sort of amount to someone anyway. In fact the only couple work I have undertaken in the last 10 months have been at about one tenth of market value ie expenses as a favour to the NHS.
Dont judge people by Tory PB Standards. Lansley has broken the Acute Healthcare sector. Besides I am busy between now and May getting EICIPM elected.
Arent most PB Tories stuffing taxpayers money into Granny Bonds as we speak?
The point that's in danger of being lost in the froth about Pessina is that, even amongst people like me, who are not natural Labour supporters and who are likely to be hit hard by whatever policies Labour does implement, there is a resentment at people who have done extraordinarily well, who pay little or no tax exploiting all sorts of loopholes (no doubt legally) which are not available to the rest of us and who are largely insulated from the consequences of bad governments.
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
Considering they are so wealthy, the super rich have really shit PR. They should invest in some poster sites. The rich and famous in portrait - their net wealth, how much they have paid in tax in the past say 5 years set out below. Strapline: "rich and proud - to pay for the NHS." Roger?
Good information which would be made better and more relevant if tax paid is set against income so we can see the effective rate and compare it to our own.
It's not just Tories who are going to get hit by that sort of information coming out. Look at Livingstone's hypocrisy when he was shown to be using a service company to reduce the tax he paid on his earnings by comparison with Johnson. Quite a lot of my Labour voting friends are very keen indeed on using every means possible to reduce the amount of tax they personally pay.
Could not agree more. Labour is not anti-business, it is business-ignorant. It is - yet another - major failing. The Boots boss is a bit of a gift, but that does not excuse Labour's total failure to engage with the business community, or to look outside of the UK to see what makes businesses tick elsewhere. I doubt it has even crossed EdM's mind.
What's amazing about Ed is that he seems so ignorant even in areas of policy where he was cabinet secretary. There was a time when Labour were expecting continued rises in wholesale energy market costs, and yet wanted to impose a total freeze on retail market prices.
At the same time, Ed Miliband wanted a 100% renewables target for just fifteen years after he would take office. Of course, these sort of targets get ever more expensive to reach as you increasingly remove the low-hanging and even middle-hanging fruit. So getting to a 100% target would be absurdly expensive.
And all this would happen in a sector where it's widely known that the UK does not have enough capital investment currently to provide for future demand. So in a sector that's already breaking at the seams, Miliband wanted them to operate at a loss, as well as almost entirely replacing the limited supply they did have. This could inevitably only happen with a huge subsidy from central government - and that would then mean greater cuts than the Tories have been doing everywhere else.
And this was in his own area of experience! What on Earth did he do while Energy Secretary? Read the Guardian every day? Because that's the level of depth his policies seem to be based on.
Do you have a link to Miliband's specific words on the renewable target? You have to read this stuff carefully - for example, Scotland apparently has a target for renewable generation equivalent to 100% of consumption, but that doesn't mean they'd stop burning fossil fuel - they may be generating the equivalent of current consumption but exporting some of it, and generating some more by burning gas or whatever.
'I think the very fact that Gordon Brown is making a speech should worry everybody. No good ever came from anything Gordon Brown ever said.'
Just amazed that Labour appoint a new Scottish leader and then refuse to let him to make a major policy speech or is Murphy already regarded as a loser.
Just checked Tories are 1.6 on betfair in R&S, extraordinary
The Tory canvassers found many, many of those voting UKIP at the by-election planned to vote Tory in May. The Tories know who they are. They will all be getting highly personalised letters inviting them to do just that.
The kitchen-sink strategy had two parts. Only one of those has played out so far.
There'll be no kitchen sink from the tories this time, they'll be too concerned with their own seats. R&S is a key target seat for ukip.
Well yes, of course it's a "key target" ..... it's one of only 4 or 5 seats UKIP has any realistic chance of winning.
"With a fair wind behind him, Mr Murphy’s duel with the SNP, which is as egregiously populist as any left-wing insurgent, could have given hope to social democrats everywhere.
As it is, Mr Murphy may be sunk before he has properly begun. The SNP surge is not abating; the problems in Scottish Labour look ever worse. While Ms Sturgeon and her legions grandiloquently name their terms for propping up a future Labour government—including, in effect, a demand to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent—Mr Murphy finds himself struggling to gee up a party with little money and less self-confidence, after a bruising run of defeats by the SNP. He is also suffering from Labour’s lack of big, credible policies, made worse by the fact that the party’s main campaign pledge—to “save” the NHS from Tory predations—has less resonance in Scotland, where control of the health service is devolved. This leaves Mr Murphy having to resort to a dubious fallback, by warning that a vote for the SNP risks bringing back the Tories by default. It is an acknowledgment of weakness. It also recalls the nats’ main argument ahead of the referendum—no more Tory governments, ever—which is the very thing Mr Murphy wants to leave behind.
With more time, he might have found a way around these troubles. The Labour brand in Scotland, as the party’s spin-doctors say, is still strong. Labour will probably eat into the SNP lead a bit. But getting back to parity looks a stretch—which contains a caution for put-upon mainstream politicians of all stripes. The electorate is so scornful of politicians that even having a good leader, such as Mr Murphy looks to be, espousing sane views, may not be sufficient to win their love. The important thing is not to lose it in the first place."
Labour seem to have made a mistake by floating the idea of reducing maximum tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
All the news reports are (correctly) saying it won't make any difference to students because they don't pay the tuition fees. Once people realise this, those who switched from Lib Dem to Labour may switch back.
Prompting for UKIP boosts others? Perhaps it will take a while for the change in question format to bed down.
The evidence so far seems to be that prompting or not for a party doesn't have any effect. Counter-intuitive, but seemingly true - the polls that prompt for UKIP don't show higher ratings for them compared to before.
I'd guess that the swings here are just sampling variation. The Others figures will have larger MOE than usual since they lump together several parties.
Labour is arguably benefiting from more media attention - the core vote for both big parties is pretty solid, but there's what you might call a near-core vote, who usually vote Labour but sometimes don't bother. Seeing the media frothing about this and that Labour policy, especially on the NHS, reminds them why they vote Labour, in much the same way as a row over "Can the Tories really cut tax as they promise?" could look embarrassing but actually help the Tories with their near-core ("They're talking about cutting my taxes, goody").
PB Tories love a good tax loophole its what put the Great in Britain.
How greedy does global capitalism have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
How greedy do public sector early-retirees have to get before PB Tories recognise something needs to be done?
It's only bad when other people use the existing legislation to their advantage. When BJO does it, it's a very sensible personal decision, that just coincidentally benefits him personally.
Is BJO leveraging debt and milking the NHS to enrich himself while avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds in corporation tax? Wow!
No, he's working the system so that he obtains maximum benefit from it. If he cared as much about the NHS as he says, he would still be working in it as by doing so he would be saving the NHS a lot of money. He has taken early pension, which if I read it correctly will be approx half salary, if he had carried on working, he would effectively be doing it for half of the cost of somebody else in that post as there would be no pension payment to make.
Hypocrisy does not require the sums to be equal, just the outcome.
Of course thats why I am declining offers of £600-£700 per day made frequently by ex colleagues on a regular basis.
I am not prepared to rip the NHS off for these amounts even though undoubtbly they will end up paying this sort of amount to someone anyway. In fact the only couple work I have undertaken in the last 10 months have been at about one tenth of market value ie expenses as a favour to the NHS.
Dont judge people by Tory PB Standards. Lansley has broken the Acute Healthcare sector. Besides I am busy between now and May getting EICIPM elected.
Arent most PB Tories stuffing taxpayers money into Granny Bonds as we speak?
What do you do for a living, BJO?
According to the CE who did my leaving speech I know everything there is to know about NHS finances and Turnaround of struggling hospital finances!!!
Retired in April 2010 as Lansley system was certain to ruin the Acute sector due to marginal Tariff and 32yrs was enough for me.
My fears have unfortunately proven to be true even quicker than I thought. My hospital is now struggling to be one only 20% of Acutes breaking even. It made a £3.9m Retained Surplus in my last year (10 months ago) now B/E is optimistic.
In 2010 99% of Acute hospitals could generate a surplus (used for capital) now less than 20% are doing so as the emergency care tariff has made acute healthcare unworkable (as BTW Circle concluded).
All the mood music is pro-Tory. The markets are moving in their favour (though not always in logical step with each other). When will the polls - and by extension the people - wake up?
"With a fair wind behind him, Mr Murphy’s duel with the SNP, which is as egregiously populist as any left-wing insurgent, could have given hope to social democrats everywhere.
As it is, Mr Murphy may be sunk before he has properly begun. The SNP surge is not abating; the problems in Scottish Labour look ever worse. While Ms Sturgeon and her legions grandiloquently name their terms for propping up a future Labour government—including, in effect, a demand to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent—Mr Murphy finds himself struggling to gee up a party with little money and less self-confidence, after a bruising run of defeats by the SNP. He is also suffering from Labour’s lack of big, credible policies, made worse by the fact that the party’s main campaign pledge—to “save” the NHS from Tory predations—has less resonance in Scotland, where control of the health service is devolved. This leaves Mr Murphy having to resort to a dubious fallback, by warning that a vote for the SNP risks bringing back the Tories by default. It is an acknowledgment of weakness. It also recalls the nats’ main argument ahead of the referendum—no more Tory governments, ever—which is the very thing Mr Murphy wants to leave behind.
With more time, he might have found a way around these troubles. The Labour brand in Scotland, as the party’s spin-doctors say, is still strong. Labour will probably eat into the SNP lead a bit. But getting back to parity looks a stretch—which contains a caution for put-upon mainstream politicians of all stripes. The electorate is so scornful of politicians that even having a good leader, such as Mr Murphy looks to be, espousing sane views, may not be sufficient to win their love. The important thing is not to lose it in the first place."
That's interesting - supports my fear that backing Tory spending limits has been Miliband and Balls worst strategic blunder.
Voters don't want small government. Quite right too.
I love the smell of cratered rightwing ideology in the morning.
The Times' Red Box Polls say Voters believe austerity best boost for economy Tories clearest about plans to cut deficit Voters know little about UKIP policies and even less about the Greens Voters want 'change' but think they will be worse off under Labour.
On the poll about government just 31% say governemnt is a force for good. On a 'forced choice' and 'reducing this huge and complex issue' the polls said 61% wanted the government to do 'more'. Just what this 'more' means, given that only 31% think govt is a force for good, remains a moot point. And of course the other polls clearly show that they want 'more' done with 'less'. Frankly a question when you are forced to make a decision on 'complex' matters (such as where the money comes from) is not much of a question at all.
All the mood music is pro-Tory. The markets are moving in their favour (though not always in logical step with each other). When will the polls - and by extension the people - wake up?
;-)
I have no idea, I'm on quite alot of Conservative positions in constituencies though (And several at odds on)
I don't think the Conservative backers look at those too deeply in the main.
Once again, the Tories flatter to deceive, failing to push through at a time when the polls are really beginning to count. If they are going to have any real chance of winning in May, they really have to start motoring and soon. Interesting that Prof. Fisher drew particular reference to their sluggish performance of late, compared with what was expected in terms of his 2015 GE Seats model.
Prompting for UKIP boosts others? Perhaps it will take a while for the change in question format to bed down.
The evidence so far seems to be that prompting or not for a party doesn't have any effect. Counter-intuitive, but seemingly true - the polls that prompt for UKIP don't show higher ratings for them compared to before.
It is reassuring, though. If people are thinking about it enough that prompting on the first screen doesn't make a difference it gives me more confidence in the results overall, given the known biases at play with ordering of ballot papers, numerical framing and middle options.
Considering support for their policies on immigration, the EU, grammar schools and several others is higher than their current polling, and they will be given major party coverage in the election campaign, this is surely bad news for the Tories.
All the mood music is pro-Tory. The markets are moving in their favour (though not always in logical step with each other). When will the polls - and by extension the people - wake up?
;-)
I have no idea, I'm on quite alot of Conservative positions in constituencies though (And several at odds on)
I don't think the Conservative backers look at those too deeply in the main.
My analysis is that the Tories win reasonably comfortably, possibly even with a majority. However I'm starting to bet the other way at current prices (or at least look for value hedges, such as that 14-1 LD bet).
Labour seem to have made a mistake by floating the idea of reducing maximum tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
All the news reports are (correctly) saying it won't make any difference to students because they don't pay the tuition fees. Once people realise this, those who switched from Lib Dem to Labour may switch back.
Not exactly. Fees are paid by students who take out student loans. To what extent these are liable to be paid back is a separate question.
Universities and vice-chancellors are up in arms because (a) fees are the major part of their income so the higher the better, and (b) they are paid up-front.
The cost to the rest of us is uncertain as while the government pays up-front, loans are repaid later and because the loans are income-contingent, might never become due.
However, your shiny, new graduate still leaves with a nice photo for mum to put on the telly and a massive debt and perhaps resentment of LibDems breaking their manifesto and campaign pledges on this issue.
Even if you think "Most seats" is on a knife edge, the expected parliament is going to have the SNP that won't deal with the Conservatives.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. If the SNP sweep Scotland, Most Seats probably won't be on a knife-edge. In any case, it's not a neutral exchange: SNP seats make a Labour government less likely than the seats going direct to Labour.
o/t - Some posters have asked how many candidates the Green party will stand in May. The stated target has been 75% (upgraded to 500 in a comment by Caroline Lucas). They are now fund raising specifically to stand more:
It seems crowdfunding could be quite a game-changer for the Green party. A way of mobilising online / social media support into something practical. The Bristol West candidate recently raised nearly £10k that way. May not sound much to you but with HQ party funding he'll have more cash to spend on this contest than previous Green party candidates in target seats could have dreamed of.
That might explain why you often get lone paedophiles arrested but gangs seem to get prosecuted a lot less often. Criminal enterprises more easily have connections at a higher level.
It would also explain why the race angle gets media time. If there is involvement at senior levels of our institutions in this criminality then it is convenient for attention to be deflected onto the race aspect, and away from the potential involvement/collusion of senior people in the police, local council, Westminster, etc.
An interesting thought. I genuinely think there is something to the race angle, but you're correct that it's of minor importance compared to a senior political cover-up.
o/t - Some posters have asked how many candidates the Green party will stand in May. The stated target has been 75% (upgraded to 500 in a comment by Caroline Lucas). They are now fund raising specifically to stand more:
It seems crowdfunding could be quite a game-changer for the Green party. A way of mobilising online / social media support into something practical. The Bristol West candidate recently raised nearly £10k that way. May not sound much to you but with HQ party funding he'll have more cash to spend on this contest than previous Green party candidates in target seats could have dreamed of.
Do you want me to run as a candidate in North East Derbyshire for you ?
It could mean avoiding a large payout to Eagles...
Mr. Eagles, abstaining would be a ridiculous request, because they could simply renege at any time.
An English Parliament is necessary. English votes for English laws is better than the status quo, though it does not go far enough, and needs backing up by legislation so Scottish MPs cannot interfere in non-Scots, devolved matters.
That might explain why you often get lone paedophiles arrested but gangs seem to get prosecuted a lot less often. Criminal enterprises more easily have connections at a higher level.
It would also explain why the race angle gets media time. If there is involvement at senior levels of our institutions in this criminality then it is convenient for attention to be deflected onto the race aspect, and away from the potential involvement/collusion of senior people in the police, local council, Westminster, etc.
An interesting thought. I genuinely think there is something to the race angle, but you're correct that it's of minor importance compared to a senior political cover-up.
The quote was "Labour will have a world-leading commitment in government to take all of the carbon out of our energy by 2030"
That is literally going to be impossible. Even with win farms the foundations for wind turbines are made from cement which releases a lot of CO2 when manufactured. Taking manufacturing into account the aluminium and cement for wind turbines means that it takes longer than the service life of the unit to offset the emissions from manufacturing.
The recently installed Scottish Labour Party leader was trying to canvass opinion on a housing estate in the western part of the city, which should be Labour territory. But the group of Scottish National Party (SNP) supporters at his heels made this almost impossible. Every time he raised his hand to a doorbell, they yelled: “Liar at your door, love!” “Red Tory scum!” “What about the 100,000 dead Iraqis?”
Nice people, the SNP.
Still, I suppose that Labour can't complain, given that all the SNP have done is copy and refine Labour's own politics of hate.
Mr. Eagles, abstaining would be a ridiculous request, because they could simply renege at any time.
An English Parliament is necessary. English votes for English laws is better than the status quo, though it does not go far enough, and needs backing up by legislation so Scottish MPs cannot interfere in non-Scots, devolved matters.
Dave could simply threaten to dissolve the Scottish assembly and appoint a regional governor if that happened. I hear it worked well elsewhere.....
o/t - Some posters have asked how many candidates the Green party will stand in May. The stated target has been 75% (upgraded to 500 in a comment by Caroline Lucas). They are now fund raising specifically to stand more:
It seems crowdfunding could be quite a game-changer for the Green party. A way of mobilising online / social media support into something practical. The Bristol West candidate recently raised nearly £10k that way. May not sound much to you but with HQ party funding he'll have more cash to spend on this contest than previous Green party candidates in target seats could have dreamed of.
Do you want me to run as a candidate in North East Derbyshire for you ?
I'd rather your gf did, she sounds like a better fit with the party's policy platform!
Comments
And it's all Osborne's fault!
Hypocrisy does not require the sums to be equal, just the outcome.
The old Goebbels big lie strategy still seems to be working go them.
Just think where they would be with a decent leader - not sure who it could be looking at the current front bench.
"It has shored up its base and, as these are not times conducive to the pontifications of galactically out of touch billionaires, no one but dwindling numbers of ardent Tories will be moved to sympathy for the ramblings of the Boots owner."
Correct. But Labour now have to follow up. Salmond did it brilliantly in the referendum campaign by turning the bedroom tax into something emblematic.
Labour have to do the same. They have to turn these gifts into a narrative which becomes a national campaign. If there's one thing we've learnt from Scotland it's that there's a sense of injustice out there and with Cameron and Osborne at the helm it's easily directable.
And potentially much more effective than Miliband and his funny faces in my opinion.
A revenue tax would not be offset-able and would discourage high volume business in favour of low volume high value business models.
James Dyson told of his call for R&D tax breaks being turned down by politicians because it would lead companies to fund research simply to pay less tax. "That's the point."
Cringein' ell
Such people are often those investing in property here, driving prices ever higher with baleful effects on my childrens' generation's chances of finding somewhere to live.
The middle classes may not love Labour but they don't love the super-rich either and they don't love a party which seems - on occasion - to take only their interests into account.
The fact is that both Labour and the Tories have over the last decades both cosied up to big business and the very rich in a somewhat naive way. It's not screamingly obvious that this has necessarily benefited the rest of us quite as much as some would have us believe.
Under VAT, a business that buys 100 items at £19 and sells them at £20 pays VAT on £100. This is the same a business that buys one item at £1 and sells it for £101, which makes sense because both sellers are leaving £100 better off before tax.
If we were taxing their sales revenue the first person would be taxed on £2000 whereas the second only £101.
Incredible
Populus unweighted has been absolubtely STUFFED full of Kippers all fricking parliament.
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if UKIP could hit 20 or so % come the GE.
George Osborne might, of course, be aiming the mood music not at voters but at donors.
Looks like Cameron's catastrophic Libyan adventure was, like Iraq, justified using faulty and cherry picked intelligence. I have absolute confidence the media will investigate this.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-1), Con 31 (-3), LD 8 (-2), UKIP 14 (-), Others 13 (+6). Tables here: http://popu.lu/sVI020215
Only part in jest.
So I think they have to put a lot of effort into Rochester and Strood, and they'd far rather tie up national UKIP resources there, than in other Tory-held seats. However, I don't believe that TSE will be going down to canvass. He promised that for the by-election and then backed out.
Huh?
Edit: even stranger as they are not prompting for Greens.
I am not prepared to rip the NHS off for these amounts even though undoubtbly they will end up paying this sort of amount to someone anyway. In fact the only couple work I have undertaken in the last 10 months have been at about one tenth of market value ie expenses as a favour to the NHS.
Dont judge people by Tory PB Standards. Lansley has broken the Acute Healthcare sector. Besides I am busy between now and May getting EICIPM elected.
Arent most PB Tories stuffing taxpayers money into Granny Bonds as we speak?
Prompting for UKIP boosts others? Perhaps it will take a while for the change in question format to bed down.
'I think the very fact that Gordon Brown is making a speech should worry everybody. No good ever came from anything Gordon Brown ever said.'
Just amazed that Labour appoint a new Scottish leader and then refuse to let him to make a major policy speech or is Murphy already regarded as a loser.
Can he regain Gold Standard status today ?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4d4aa348-a8ac-11e4-ad01-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QVeWtZoL
Its conclusion:
"With a fair wind behind him, Mr Murphy’s duel with the SNP, which is as egregiously populist as any left-wing insurgent, could have given hope to social democrats everywhere.
As it is, Mr Murphy may be sunk before he has properly begun. The SNP surge is not abating; the problems in Scottish Labour look ever worse. While Ms Sturgeon and her legions grandiloquently name their terms for propping up a future Labour government—including, in effect, a demand to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent—Mr Murphy finds himself struggling to gee up a party with little money and less self-confidence, after a bruising run of defeats by the SNP. He is also suffering from Labour’s lack of big, credible policies, made worse by the fact that the party’s main campaign pledge—to “save” the NHS from Tory predations—has less resonance in Scotland, where control of the health service is devolved. This leaves Mr Murphy having to resort to a dubious fallback, by warning that a vote for the SNP risks bringing back the Tories by default. It is an acknowledgment of weakness. It also recalls the nats’ main argument ahead of the referendum—no more Tory governments, ever—which is the very thing Mr Murphy wants to leave behind.
With more time, he might have found a way around these troubles. The Labour brand in Scotland, as the party’s spin-doctors say, is still strong. Labour will probably eat into the SNP lead a bit. But getting back to parity looks a stretch—which contains a caution for put-upon mainstream politicians of all stripes. The electorate is so scornful of politicians that even having a good leader, such as Mr Murphy looks to be, espousing sane views, may not be sufficient to win their love. The important thing is not to lose it in the first place."
All the news reports are (correctly) saying it won't make any difference to students because they don't pay the tuition fees. Once people realise this, those who switched from Lib Dem to Labour may switch back.
I'd guess that the swings here are just sampling variation. The Others figures will have larger MOE than usual since they lump together several parties.
Labour is arguably benefiting from more media attention - the core vote for both big parties is pretty solid, but there's what you might call a near-core vote, who usually vote Labour but sometimes don't bother. Seeing the media frothing about this and that Labour policy, especially on the NHS, reminds them why they vote Labour, in much the same way as a row over "Can the Tories really cut tax as they promise?" could look embarrassing but actually help the Tories with their near-core ("They're talking about cutting my taxes, goody").
Retired in April 2010 as Lansley system was certain to ruin the Acute sector due to marginal Tariff and 32yrs was enough for me.
My fears have unfortunately proven to be true even quicker than I thought. My hospital is now struggling to be one only 20% of Acutes breaking even. It made a £3.9m Retained Surplus in my last year (10 months ago) now B/E is optimistic.
In 2010 99% of Acute hospitals could generate a surplus (used for capital) now less than 20% are doing so as the emergency care tariff has made acute healthcare unworkable (as BTW Circle concluded).
Pls retweet that my Scottish individual constituency poll will be released at 11am Wed at http://lordashcroftpolls.com Register there to receive
Lay Cameron @ 1.65
;-)
They're now hemmed in on all sides.
Voters believe austerity best boost for economy
Tories clearest about plans to cut deficit
Voters know little about UKIP policies and even less about the Greens
Voters want 'change' but think they will be worse off under Labour.
On the poll about government just 31% say governemnt is a force for good.
On a 'forced choice' and 'reducing this huge and complex issue' the polls said 61% wanted the government to do 'more'. Just what this 'more' means, given that only 31% think govt is a force for good, remains a moot point. And of course the other polls clearly show that they want 'more' done with 'less'. Frankly a question when you are forced to make a decision on 'complex' matters (such as where the money comes from) is not much of a question at all.
I don't think the Conservative backers look at those too deeply in the main.
Massive disconnect between current polls and Betfair market IMO
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B81AJkzCQAABAtl.jpg
Interesting that Prof. Fisher drew particular reference to their sluggish performance of late, compared with what was expected in terms of his 2015 GE Seats model.
"Voters know little about UKIP policies"
Considering support for their policies on immigration, the EU, grammar schools and several others is higher than their current polling, and they will be given major party coverage in the election campaign, this is surely bad news for the Tories.
On Wednesday at 11am I'm sat at my desk and will be able to get the news live.
I've rarely been so excited about a collection of impressionistic snapshots that give no reliable guide as to what will actually happen.
Universities and vice-chancellors are up in arms because (a) fees are the major part of their income so the higher the better, and (b) they are paid up-front.
The cost to the rest of us is uncertain as while the government pays up-front, loans are repaid later and because the loans are income-contingent, might never become due.
However, your shiny, new graduate still leaves with a nice photo for mum to put on the telly and a massive debt and perhaps resentment of LibDems breaking their manifesto and campaign pledges on this issue.
The quote was "Labour will have a world-leading commitment in government to take all of the carbon out of our energy by 2030"
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/green-party-in-your-seat/
It seems crowdfunding could be quite a game-changer for the Green party. A way of mobilising online / social media support into something practical. The Bristol West candidate recently raised nearly £10k that way. May not sound much to you but with HQ party funding he'll have more cash to spend on this contest than previous Green party candidates in target seats could have dreamed of.
It could mean avoiding a large payout to Eagles...
You linked an FT article, not an Economist one.
affairs in exchange for abstaining on English matters and/or passing EV4EL
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21641248-labour-party-last-has-good-helmsman-scotland-he-may-not-save-it-there-murphys-law
An English Parliament is necessary. English votes for English laws is better than the status quo, though it does not go far enough, and needs backing up by legislation so Scottish MPs cannot interfere in non-Scots, devolved matters.
https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/tag/jahangir-akhtar/
Fleets butt heads in the Channel and Black Sea.
Austria plays the part of lone female cast member in an adult film.
Germany expands like a middle-aged American's waistline.
Nice people, the SNP.
Still, I suppose that Labour can't complain, given that all the SNP have done is copy and refine Labour's own politics of hate.
Where's Sunil when you need him??