"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
Ed Miliband has (or more accurately, had) a chance to position himself on the side of the people challenging vested interests and the 'establishment'. You can see this from the positions he's taken on energy firms, Murdoch, big business, bankers and influential wealthy Tory donors.
Conversely, you see David Cameron hosting dinner parties with the wealthy elite, backing the CBI, texting key employees of Murdoch's empire and supping with bankers and hedge fund owners.
Ed challenges, David is instantly on the defensive. And it looks like he's just trying to defend the status quo.
Of course, we know Ed's mood-music is largely a chimera. He's also been inconsistent and illogical in the positions he's taken, but it's only his incompetence and lack of credibility that's prevented him from executing what could have been a very successful political strategy.
It's very dangerous for the Tories if this gains traction in the long-run.
So far as the libel threat is concerned, if Ed Miliband repeats his comments outside Parliament and if Lord Fink sues him for libel, it may well work fine for Ed Miliband in the short term.
In the longer term, I can't imagine him being particularly keen on being a defendant in a libel action while he's Prime Minister. But nor can I see him apologising to settle the libel action if he remains active in politics, because that would probably be a career-ending blow to his credibility.
From this, therefore, I infer that he is very doubtful whether he has much chance of becoming Prime Minister and his decision-making is currently predicated on maximising his short term chances. That's logical given the current state of British politics, but it's interesting to have some independent evidence of the point.
"Senior figures in UKIP think radical reform of the NHS is needed and internal disagreements about the idea are likely to resurface after the general election.
I understand that one senior official very closely involved in writing the party's general election manifesto believes the current system "can't go on"." Flag Quote · Off Topic
"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
Actually no. I worked for many years in Norway whilst living in the UK. Under those circumstances most countries have you pay tax where you work not where you live. In fact they have it both ways because you are still liable for taxes in your home country but can write off any tax you have paid overseas against your home country taxes under reciprocal rules. But since most countries - at least in Europe - have taxes higher than the UK and you cannot of course claim back anything, the net effect is that you end up paying the highest rate of tax applicable between the two countries.
Surely the perception problem re tax avoidance/evasion is that HMRC and the Benefits Agency appear to come down hard on the small fish fiddling a few quid. This if you get £1-2 pa illegally, then it's jail. If you "retain" ten times those sums then you get to meet the PM on a social basis.
It's all of a piece with Dave and George's ridiculous "we're all in this together" meme, which ordinary "hard working people" find it impossible to accept.
Labour doesn't have clean hands there, Mandelson and Blair entertained and accepted money from a whole host of people whose tax affairs might not withstand close scrutiny.
Tony Blair made millions of pounds last year but paid just a fraction of it in tax thanks to the complicated web of companies he has established.
The former prime minister’s secretive business empire declared an income of £12million.
But he was able to reduce his tax bill to just £315,000 after writing off almost £11million as ‘administrative expenses’ – a ‘surprisingly’ high figure, according to one accountant.
Yes it could be toxic for Labour. Blair and Mandleson. Tsk.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·5s5 seconds ago Lewisham, London Great. So now Ed Miliband is about to get himself sued. That's just what Labour needs.
I think in Labour minds being sued by a supposedly / allegedly 'dodgy' tory individual is just what they think they need - can they put it in line with taking on Murdoch and trying to play at being anti-the elite.
Didn't take long....
norman smith@BBCNormanS·33 mins33 minutes ago Ed Miliband stood up to banks, the energy companies, Rupert Murdoch - and will certainly stand up to Lord Fink - Tristram Hunt @BBCr4today
Hunt may well have dropped himself in the sh1t during that interview. Most entertaining.
Mr. L, the site isn't covered by Parliamentary privilege and I'd suggest it's unwise to ask members of the site to highlight/repeat claims which, made outside the Chamber, may amount to libel/slander.
Edited extra bit: this might be a bit over-cautious on my part. I'm just wary of landing Mr. Smithson with legal troubles needlessly.
Not "a bit over-cautious" but completely inaccurate.
You may repeat allegations made under parliamentary privilege unconditionally. It would be wise as OGH indicated yesterday that PBers note as such in any post here.
My latest for Betfair Predicts. In a toss-up the outsider is the value bet http://bit.ly/16WMdln
It really was a serious strategic blow that the Tories failed to get the boundary changes past the Commons in 2013. That'd have been worth around 20 seats in their favour (mostly at the expense of Labour) and we'd now be talking about whether they could eek out an overall majority, rather than just achieve largest party status.
I have zero sympathy for these offshore tax avoiders. I just can't understand it. I know one of the comedians-not Jimmy Carr-but similar and happen to know he makes about £3,000,000 a year.
There is just no need to try any sort of tax avoidance scheme because with that income and the sort of lifestyle he lives he'd never get through the money he earns anyway.
That someone with a capital of £180,000,000 would use any system to reduce tax would show a serious character flaw and if Cameron appointed such a person to his inner circle he'd be insane
I assume you only earn the minimum wage and have waived your standard industry salary and bonuses over the years? after all it would seem that you think that people have no need for more money than necessary to survive. Or is it a case that the line you draw in your head for what is a "suitable" amount of wealth/earnings is somewhere just above what you personally have?
or would you rather live in a world where people have the right and incentive to earn as much as they can and organise their wealth within the laws of the land. after all if some people who were more driven by accumulation of wealth than purely by vocation reached a ceiling then there would be no incentive for them to keep building and innovating as the return for their efforts would not be there.
But I am sure you are happy that your earnings and wealth are justifiable but if someone has more than you it is just greed.....
Do tell us, what is the "correct" level of wealth in your opinion?
Incidentally, you can be held to have committed a libel if you repeat an allegation even when you are making it clear that you vigorously disagree with it, if others might still believe it. So caution is recommended all round, especially when someone has already made it clear that they are prepared to sue the moment that they are given the opportunity to do so.
Our libel laws are ridiculous. They allow the wealthy to bully those who can't afford to challenge them into silence.
I just read the Hansard you posted. I would say the comment leaves him open to hate contemt or ridicule. So if untrue is likely to be a libel.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
Incidentally, you can be held to have committed a libel if you repeat an allegation even when you are making it clear that you vigorously disagree with it, if others might still believe it. So caution is recommended all round, especially when someone has already made it clear that they are prepared to sue the moment that they are given the opportunity to do so.
Our libel laws are ridiculous. They allow the wealthy to bully those who can't afford to challenge them into silence.
I just read the Hansard you posted. I would say the comment leaves him open to hate contemt or ridicule. So if untrue is likely to be a libel.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
Perhaps it was your father's visits that made her unhappy.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
I don't think the electorate really bought into the Conservatives last time, and haven't since 1992.
Cameron won due to the colossal awfulness of Gordon Brown's government and the recession/depression. The only time he had convincing leads was from 2008-late 2009 when this was at its most obvious.
It still seems to me that if Labour have a decent credible leader, and the economy is not perceived to be a weakness for them, the electorate gravitate by default to Labour. Or, at least, enough of them to make their re-election no real contest.
This is a serious problem for the Conservative Party.
Incidentally, you can be held to have committed a libel if you repeat an allegation even when you are making it clear that you vigorously disagree with it, if others might still believe it. So caution is recommended all round, especially when someone has already made it clear that they are prepared to sue the moment that they are given the opportunity to do so.
Our libel laws are ridiculous. They allow the wealthy to bully those who can't afford to challenge them into silence.
Reforms supported by all political parties, only made things worse.
I just read the Hansard you posted. I would say the comment leaves him open to hate contemt or ridicule. So if untrue is likely to be a libel.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
Perhaps it was your father's visits that made her unhappy.
"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
Actually no. I worked for many years in Norway whilst living in the UK. Under those circumstances most countries have you pay tax where you work not where you live. In fact they have it both ways because you are still liable for taxes in your home country but can write off any tax you have paid overseas against your home country taxes under reciprocal rules. But since most countries - at least in Europe - have taxes higher than the UK and you cannot of course claim back anything, the net effect is that you end up paying the highest rate of tax applicable between the two countries.
That's kind of a special case. Most ex-pats are out the country either permanently or on a very long term basis. For example I haven't been in the UK for over five years, I am not liable for any taxes in the UK, and instead pay tax locally where I am currently living. I am not "avoiding" UK tax any more than the boss of Boots is, I simply am not liable for any such taxes.
@BBCNormanS: Tory sources say key issue is whether Ed Miliband repeats claim that Lord Fink is "dodgy"
@BBCNormanS: Labour sources say Ed Miliband did not call Lord Fink "dodgy" but did question his "tax avoidance activities"
The Sun Says :
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 53m 53 minutes ago For avoidance of doubt: Ed Miliband must today repeat phrases "tax avoidance activities of L*** ****" and "dodgy donor". Or he's bottled it.
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
What I do not understand is why the pb tories are so defensive about Ed M's allegations yesterday . They themselves constantly ( and as it happens correctly ) accuse Trade Unions of buying influence over the Labour Party and its policies . Just as the Unions have the Labour Party as theirs so the super rich , tax avoiders and tax dodgers have the Conservative Party as theirs to look after their interests and to whom they can donate their millions and receive peerages and protection in return .
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Do let us know what you think of a man who actually is our Prime Minister naming Lord Paul in the same exchange.
Mr. M, if Greece leaves the eurozone and we see turmoil overseas, and this harms our economy, people will link the two together. Those who don't won't have ever considered voting Conservative in the first place.
That sorts the blame, I predict, but the answer as to who has the best credentials for handling the economy and navigating choppy waters will be key. It could be an opportunity for Labour. Although the Conservatives lead on economic matters generally, they have an economic lead to lose and the reds have a deficit [ahem] to narrow.
It could be bad for the SNP. If the eurozone is undergoing a tsunami of woe, there could be a two party squeeze as people shun the idea of a coalition and weeks/months of coalition negotiation whilst the continent sinks beneath the waves. I think it'd have to be pretty economically awful for that to happen, but it's a possibility.
Knowing Labour, the deficit [ahem] can only get greater
BTW over the period you mention NHS England spending went from around £75bn per annum to £120bn in 2012 prices. Again a pretty huge increase.
Lots of nurses and doctors got rather large pay rises over that period and lots of administrators retired in their early 50's GP contracts contrived to pay GPs quite a lot more, to do quite a lot less.
Since we have all that extra money being spent, and since there is apparently no problem with increasing population, then it presumably follows that all that fuss about overstretched hospitals over Christmas, and the absurd waiting times some of my elderly relatives are having to get to see their GP, not to mention the almost two years it took for my mother to get her cataract operation must be a figment of my imagination.
Your initial point was this.
1. Labour allowed unfettered immigration and population increased 9% 2. It needed to increase spending by at least 9% to keep things going. 3. It didn't therefore we should BAN IMMIGRATION AND KICK OUT THE DARKIES.
My point is that you are using a false premise to create a straw man argument against immigration (like all arguments against immigration). Immigrants don't cause problems to society. And even then, the argument is fundamentally flawed by being factually untrue.
There may be issues to society from some immigrants but no more so (and usually less so) than for native populations.
Yeah Labour fucked up, Labour are fuck ups, NuLabour spent like there was no tomorrow, fucked the country for generations to come and still won't accept the guilt. But that is a completely different debate.
You think there are no legitimate arguments against immigration?
There are no arguments against the current level of UK immigrations and plenty of good reasons to want higher levels.
"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
Actually no. I worked for many years in Norway whilst living in the UK. Under those circumstances most countries have you pay tax where you work not where you live. In fact they have it both ways because you are still liable for taxes in your home country but can write off any tax you have paid overseas against your home country taxes under reciprocal rules. But since most countries - at least in Europe - have taxes higher than the UK and you cannot of course claim back anything, the net effect is that you end up paying the highest rate of tax applicable between the two countries.
That's kind of a special case. Most ex-pats are out the country either permanently or on a very long term basis. For example I haven't been in the UK for over five years, I am not liable for any taxes in the UK, and instead pay tax locally where I am currently living. I am not "avoiding" UK tax any more than the boss of Boots is, I simply am not liable for any such taxes.
I assume, though, that your income is not due to your activities in UK. Unlike the boss of Boots.
@BBCNormanS: Tory sources say key issue is whether Ed Miliband repeats claim that Lord Fink is "dodgy"
@BBCNormanS: Labour sources say Ed Miliband did not call Lord Fink "dodgy" but did question his "tax avoidance activities"
The Sun Says :
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 53m 53 minutes ago For avoidance of doubt: Ed Miliband must today repeat phrases "tax avoidance activities of L*** ****" and "dodgy donor". Or he's bottled it.
This is the trouble for Miliband. If he thinks it he should repeat it, if he doesn't he shouldn't have said it. I think we all know he won't repeat it, and we all know he won't retract it.
I just read the Hansard you posted. I would say the comment leaves him open to hate contemt or ridicule. So if untrue is likely to be a libel.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
what a strange story - i assume you are using it to illustrate an idea that people who avoid tax become sad and miserable?
i don't really understand why she decided to move to Jersey just to save tax. Surely the money left to her by her husband would, if she had a competent lawyer, have been left to her in a tax efficient way - perhaps something like the arch nemesis of tax avoiders Ed Miliband's father did - and so she would not have been hit by IHT. Then any competent lawyer would surely have been able to advise her how to minimise further tax liabilities on income and capital gains so that she was not haemorrhaging money to the state if she didn't want to.
I would have thought that a good lawyer would have been able to advise his client sufficiently well that what marginal amount she would save in tax by moving to Jersey would be nothing compared to the upheaval in her life.
To me it sounds more like the lady had a few issues or was badly advised. and if she didn't have a social life in Jersey, a very sociable and welcoming place, then it would appear that it was her fault and not the fault of moving to a low tax jurisdiction.
What I do not understand is why the pb tories are so defensive about Ed M's allegations yesterday . They themselves constantly ( and as it happens correctly ) accuse Trade Unions of buying influence over the Labour Party and its policies . Just as the Unions have the Labour Party as theirs so the super rich , tax avoiders and tax dodgers have the Conservative Party as theirs to look after their interests and to whom they can donate their millions and receive peerages and protection in return .
Did the convicted fraudster Michael Brown hope to buy influence over the LibDems when he gave them £2.5 million of stolen money?
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Michael Foot made one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in the HoC, namely his reply to the Government in the Saturday debate following the invasion of the Falklands.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Do let us know what you think of a man who actually is our Prime Minister naming Lord Paul in the same exchange.
Cameron didn't say Lord Paul was a dodgy donor, at the heart of a dodgy Labour Party.
If you can't see the difference, there's no point in engaging with you further.
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Good post so worth full quote. Can 2. be true? Replaying the pmqs it looks like Miliband got angry. So did Cameron. Not a good place to be if you want to be getting a point across and it can cloud judgement.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
Janan Ganesh, Esq. (@JGaneshEsq) 12/02/2015 08:50 Another Thursday and another invitation from Question Time. Not.In.A.Million.Years. Holding out for @bbcthisweek, with @afneil and Portillo.
Bit of further detective work on the markets. Either a) only the Labour share was leaked or, more likely, all of it was leaked and b) the Cons share hasn't gone up. I'm going to guess both main party shares have fallen with Cons down 1 or 2 to 32/31 and Labour down into the 20's. If that's right question is who has benefited most. UKIP? That would figure as Ipsos Mori had UKIP sunk at 11% last time which seemed low. Suppose they are now 18% or so, that would look like a corker even though it would be margin of error.
Well, few more hours and the speculation will be over. Hope it really lives up to its billing.
As for HSBC I've a feeling it could horribly backfire for Miliband. His performance yesterday has left a nasty smell under the noses of a lot of neutrals.
I also hear that the Government was told two years earlier than originally thought (re HSBC), so not 2010 after all.
"A corker of a poll" for me would have either Labour or the Conservatives with a large lead or have UKIP in second place. Anything else would be interesting or eyebrow-raising, but hardly a corker.
In polling land "absolutely unbelievable rollercoaster" means no change.
You think there are no legitimate arguments against immigration?
There are no arguments against the current level of UK immigrations and plenty of good reasons to want higher levels.
Since the UK is a democracy, the key argument is that 76% of the population want immigration reduced, and 52% want it reduce by "a lot" according to the recent BES Survey.
Did you get to the bottom of the bet fair discrepancy?
What's that about a discrepancy? That last price matched 2.74 has gone out to 7 again now. Minimal volume trading anyway today. Guess everyones holding breath.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Michael Foot made one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in the HoC, namely his reply to the Government in the Saturday debate following the invasion of the Falklands.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Amazing thing is, not only do you remember the Falklands speech and the Norway debate but probably Cromwell's speech too....
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Good post so worth full quote. Can 2. be true? Replaying the pmqs it looks like Miliband got angry. So did Cameron. Not a good place to be if you want to be getting a point across and it can cloud judgement.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
My money would be on 1). It's a game Tom Watson played - Miliband has gone copy cat.
But 2), someone at HMRC leaking confidential tax information to a politician, would be dynamite.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Michael Foot made one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in the HoC, namely his reply to the Government in the Saturday debate following the invasion of the Falklands.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
The only fear worthy of note from Ukip is called Sean.
Many of us don't fear ukip. We despise their opportunism and their responsibility for helping Milipede into power.
Right, so Cameron can't come up with a package which wins votes and that's someone else's fault ?
Indeed. I am not a kipper, and wont be voting kipper, but only because of the possibility of a EU referendum. Cameron has done nothing else to encourage me to vote for him, and in many ways has been indistinguishable from an orange book LD. If there is the slightest bad odour about how the referendum is handled in 2017 I will be kippering like a shot and I suspect quite a lot of the right of the Tory party will as well.
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Good post so worth full quote. Can 2. be true? Replaying the pmqs it looks like Miliband got angry. So did Cameron. Not a good place to be if you want to be getting a point across and it can cloud judgement.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
My money would be on 1). It's a game Tom Watson played - Miliband has gone copy cat.
Think you're right. Yours is the best quote I've seen on the whole saga so far:
"So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister."
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Michael Foot made one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in the HoC, namely his reply to the Government in the Saturday debate following the invasion of the Falklands.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Amazing thing is, not only do you remember the Falklands speech and the Norway debate but probably Cromwell's speech too....
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Good post so worth full quote. Can 2. be true? Replaying the pmqs it looks like Miliband got angry. So did Cameron. Not a good place to be if you want to be getting a point across and it can cloud judgement.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
My money would be on 1). It's a game Tom Watson played - Miliband has gone copy cat.
Think you're right. Yours is the best quote I've seen on the whole saga so far:
"So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister."
The only fear worthy of note from Ukip is called Sean.
Many of us don't fear ukip. We despise their opportunism and their responsibility for helping Milipede into power.
If the Conservatives fail to win sufficient votes to stop Milliband, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.
I remember you saying around 5-6 years ago that the Conservatives had one chance, and one chance alone, to deliver for their supporters.
At the time I thought that was a little bit melodramatic, but now I realise it was very prophetic.
They've delivered. They've turned the economy around. What could possibly be more important than that?
There has been a line of argument here that suggests that Miliband wont have a very happy time if he wins the election because he will have to make in effect the same cuts as the Tories are. That being the case if he had made the same cuts as the Tories (although probably more cuddly I am sure ) its reasonable to suppose that the same results will have resulted and the economy will have recovered under them as well.
The only fear worthy of note from Ukip is called Sean.
Many of us don't fear ukip. We despise their opportunism and their responsibility for helping Milipede into power.
Right, so Cameron can't come up with a package which wins votes and that's someone else's fault ?
Indeed. I am not a kipper, and wont be voting kipper, but only because of the possibility of a EU referendum. Cameron has done nothing else to encourage me to vote for him, and in many ways has been indistinguishable from an orange book LD. If there is the slightest bad odour about how the referendum is handled in 2017 I will be kippering like a shot and I suspect quite a lot of the right of the Tory party will as well.
This is the bit that some on the tribal Conservatives on the board just can't answer. There are enough disaffected blues yourself, Mr Casino and myself on this thread but others past and present who haven't made a jump to UKIP but are sitting on our votes saying not worth voting.
The currrent partisan approach consists of any of the following:
- you're a kipper - we're better off without you - you're a racist\homophobe\closet Nazi - look what we have done and be grateful - you're solely responsible for Ed getting elected - Mad Red Ed will kill your family though have you seen how useless he is - etc.
None of them ever seem to be able to engage with where it has gone wrong for a chunk of their natural consitituency. I voted blue in the total no-hoper of 1997 when any logical analysis would say it was a waste of time. But I won't in 2015 when on paper it's a much tighter election. If I was at CCHQ that would at least be raising questions and getting people looking at what went awry.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
what a strange story - i assume you are using it to illustrate an idea that people who avoid tax become sad and miserable?
i don't really understand why she decided to move to Jersey just to save tax. Surely the money left to her by her husband would, if she had a competent lawyer, have been left to her in a tax efficient way - perhaps something like the arch nemesis of tax avoiders Ed Miliband's father did - and so she would not have been hit by IHT. Then any competent lawyer would surely have been able to advise her how to minimise further tax liabilities on income and capital gains so that she was not haemorrhaging money to the state if she didn't want to.
I would have thought that a good lawyer would have been able to advise his client sufficiently well that what marginal amount she would save in tax by moving to Jersey would be nothing compared to the upheaval in her life.
To me it sounds more like the lady had a few issues or was badly advised. and if she didn't have a social life in Jersey, a very sociable and welcoming place, then it would appear that it was her fault and not the fault of moving to a low tax jurisdiction.
It may be this person had health issues and could not reasonably expect to live long, thereby losing some of the avenues open to mitigating the pernicious IHT. Going offshore is one possible avenue of last resort.
My own father went to the IOM, not specifically to avoid tax, but no sooner than he had arrived he was diagnosed with what appeared to be terminal cancer. We were glad of his decision, but we then had to set about ensuring that the very sticky matter of domicile was covered as far as possible, and you never know for certain if it has been. [The case of Sir Charles Clore is instructive; he went through gyrations in Monaco, but after his death, and expensive, drawn-out litigation, it was determined he had never lost his English domicile, and the tax would have to be paid]
After stressful years of this doubt hanging over us, our story had a happy ending. At one point facing a liability of nearly £300k, my Dad was cured, the Finance Act 2008 came to the rescue, he sold up and returned to the UK, made gifts to his children, and died of "old age", the world's longest recorded survivor of his type of cancer, 19 years after diagnosis!
"If I had complied with the law and were then to be accused of some unspecific wrongdoing on the basis of a Guardian article - a paper not noted for its accuracy, frankly - I'd be livid and would not let it rest, especially if I had the money to pay for lawyers."
If Fink is foolish enough not to just keep quiet Miliband will issue several questions about his tax affairs which he'll be unprepared to answer. This is not about legality as Fink and Cameron know. It's about practices that the public will find unacceptable however lawful.
As it happens I have some shares in Man Group. They haven't done particularly well so don't expect shareholders to come to his aide
Two points:-
1. You seem very sure that Fink will be unprepared to answer questions. How do you know this?
2. A libel suit - if that's what results - is very much about what is legal. If Milliband makes allegations which are unsubstantiated and found by a court of law to be libellous, that is to my mind pretty unacceptable. I expect a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition to uphold the rule of law not undermine it. I expect I'm not alone in having that view.
A candidate for Prime Minister should have integrity. Libelling someone - if that is the case - is not the mark of someone with integrity.
Shareholders would only be concerned if allegations were made against the company.
On Ed Miliband and Lord Fink, itseems there are two possiblescenarios:
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Good post so worth full quote. Can 2. be true? Replaying the pmqs it looks like Miliband got angry. So did Cameron. Not a good place to be if you want to be getting a point across and it can cloud judgement.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
My money would be on 1). It's a game Tom Watson played - Miliband has gone copy cat.
But 2), someone at HMRC leaking confidential tax information to a politician, would be dynamite.
HMRC leaked information to a blogger in Scotland and he won an "Orwell award" at the time - and was covered "coincidently" in a BBC documentary.
Turned out to be a pyrrhic victory in the end as HMRC lost the case twice in court after being offered a substantial settlement previously. They cost the tax payer a lot of money.
The Liberal Democrats are now languishing on just 6% in the latest opinion poll for the Evening Standard newspaper. That's their lowest position in the polls in 25 years and puts them in fifth behind the Greens and UKIP.
Mr Indigo, I sagrre with your statements re Blair and Mandelson, and suggest that their activities are contributing to the fact that Labour is failing to get to anyway where 35% in the polls.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
I think the economy and Milliband are Labour's two big problems. People think the economy was in a mess in May 2010 and give the government credit for partially turning it around. And, they rate Milliband worse than Michael Foot.
Michael Foot had a couple of advantages over Miliband. First of all he was seen as honest. Mistaken perhaps, but honest. Secondly he was an excellent speaker, with a lot of friends in Parliament. Thirdly he was seen to have a life outside politics.
Michael Foot made one of the finest speeches I've ever heard in the HoC, namely his reply to the Government in the Saturday debate following the invasion of the Falklands.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
What I do not understand is why the pb tories are so defensive about Ed M's allegations yesterday . They themselves constantly ( and as it happens correctly ) accuse Trade Unions of buying influence over the Labour Party and its policies . Just as the Unions have the Labour Party as theirs so the super rich , tax avoiders and tax dodgers have the Conservative Party as theirs to look after their interests and to whom they can donate their millions and receive peerages and protection in return .
No particular detail on the Ipsos MORI survey but on Nick Cleggs LBC show this morning Nick Ferrari told him the LDs were down to only 6 per cent on the latest MORI poll for the Standard. So I assume LBC/Ferrari have the poll results on embargo - and he said this by mistake?! Cos the last MORI poll had the LDs on 8 per cent.
"If I had complied with the law and were then to be accused of some unspecific wrongdoing on the basis of a Guardian article - a paper not noted for its accuracy, frankly - I'd be livid and would not let it rest, especially if I had the money to pay for lawyers."
If Fink is foolish enough not to just keep quiet Miliband will issue several questions about his tax affairs which he'll be unprepared to answer. This is not about legality as Fink and Cameron know. It's about practices that the public will find unacceptable however lawful.
As it happens I have some shares in Man Group. They haven't done particularly well so don't expect shareholders to come to his aide
Two points:-
1. You seem very sure that Fink will be unprepared to answer questions. How do you know this?
2. A libel suit - if that's what results - is very much about what is legal. If Milliband makes allegations which are unsubstantiated and found by a court of law to be libellous, that is to my mind pretty unacceptable. I expect a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition to uphold the rule of law not undermine it. I expect I'm not alone in having that view.
A candidate for Prime Minister should have integrity. Libelling someone - if that is the case - is not the mark of someone with integrity.
Shareholders would only be concerned if allegations were made against the company.
Lots of "ifs" there of course. So let's see.
We should feel sorry for the Roger, a wealthy man driven by spite as the price of his shares haven't risen by as much as he hoped, failing to enrich him even further.
It's funny that his portfolio holds stocks in the very financial institutions he claims to despise, such as MAN and Barclays.
No particular detail on the Ipsos MORI survey but on Nick Cleggs LBC show this morning Nick Ferrari told him the LDs were down to only 6 per cent on the latest MORI poll for the Standard. So I assume LBC/Ferrari have the poll results on embargo - and he said this by mistake?! Cos the last MORI poll had the LDs on 8 per cent.
No particular detail on the Ipsos MORI survey but on Nick Cleggs LBC show this morning Nick Ferrari told him the LDs were down to only 6 per cent on the latest MORI poll for the Standard. So I assume LBC/Ferrari have the poll results on embargo - and he said this by mistake?! Cos the last MORI poll had the LDs on 8 per cent.
"Three of the UK's most experienced election-watchers have predicted the Tories will do much better than expected in next May's general election but they still expect another hung parliament. "
2) I've been reading Nicola Sturgeon's speech of yesterday:
Regular readers won't be surprised that I don't entirely agree with her, but what struck me most was how impressive the speech was. It's coherent, well-argued, and engages with the issues rather than squirting random smears around,. Above all it reads like a serious politician who's actually thought about the options and has genuinely considered the implications of various options.
I rather think that, if Ed Miliband had given this speech at the Labour conference last October, with minor modifications to the Scotland-specific references, and followed through with policy development based on it, Labour would be cruising towards a majority.
The worst part was blowing the lead they had in 2008 before the election.
I can understand them being unpopular in power having to clean up Labour's mess, but blowing a 20%+ polling lead in Opposition and running that horror show of an election campaign is pretty much unforgivable....
What I do not understand is why the pb tories are so defensive about Ed M's allegations yesterday . They themselves constantly ( and as it happens correctly ) accuse Trade Unions of buying influence over the Labour Party and its policies . Just as the Unions have the Labour Party as theirs so the super rich , tax avoiders and tax dodgers have the Conservative Party as theirs to look after their interests and to whom they can donate their millions and receive peerages and protection in return .
The reason they are so twitched as the they know full well how toxic their wealthy connections are with a huge chunk of the electorate. It is undoubtedly the major barrier to them winning an overall majority. All this HSBC/Lord Fink stuff does to those who don't pay much attention is to reinforce the perceptions that many have of the Tories. Pointing out that other parties have had the odd "rogue" benefactor doesn't change that one iota. We are left to draw our own conclusions as to why the Tories seem to be primarily funded by hedge-fund managers and the like
The Liberal Democrats are now languishing on just 6% in the latest opinion poll for the Evening Standard newspaper. That's their lowest position in the polls in 25 years and puts them in fifth behind the Greens and UKIP.
Comments
"What about most British ex-pats ? They are almost all "not resident" and "not ordinarily resident" in the UK, have foreign bank accounts, and pay their taxes in the country in which they are currently living, does that make them tax avoiders ?"
I think that's fine. They are not domiciled in the UK and therefore I wouldn't exect them to be large donors let alone have an official position with one or other of our political parties. Generally you pay tax where you live. It makes sense.
Blair's "pretty straight sort of a guy" turned out to be up there with "all in this together"!
"So there we have it. Anyone who is wealthy or does anything legal to avoid paying too much tax is persona non grata."
Remind me. What was your attitude to Jimmy Carr?
He'll sue.
Conversely, you see David Cameron hosting dinner parties with the wealthy elite, backing the CBI, texting key employees of Murdoch's empire and supping with bankers and hedge fund owners.
Ed challenges, David is instantly on the defensive. And it looks like he's just trying to defend the status quo.
Of course, we know Ed's mood-music is largely a chimera. He's also been inconsistent and illogical in the positions he's taken, but it's only his incompetence and lack of credibility that's prevented him from executing what could have been a very successful political strategy.
It's very dangerous for the Tories if this gains traction in the long-run.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister.
That's a bold claim for a PBer !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31431460
"Senior figures in UKIP think radical reform of the NHS is needed and internal disagreements about the idea are likely to resurface after the general election.
I understand that one senior official very closely involved in writing the party's general election manifesto believes the current system "can't go on"."
Flag Quote · Off Topic
You may repeat allegations made under parliamentary privilege unconditionally. It would be wise as OGH indicated yesterday that PBers note as such in any post here.
or would you rather live in a world where people have the right and incentive to earn as much as they can and organise their wealth within the laws of the land. after all if some people who were more driven by accumulation of wealth than purely by vocation reached a ceiling then there would be no incentive for them to keep building and innovating as the return for their efforts would not be there.
But I am sure you are happy that your earnings and wealth are justifiable but if someone has more than you it is just greed.....
Do tell us, what is the "correct" level of wealth in your opinion?
I just read the Hansard you posted. I would say the comment leaves him open to hate contemt or ridicule. So if untrue is likely to be a libel.
My late father who was a lawyer had a client who was left £10,000,000 when her husband died (and that was when £10,000,000 was a lot of money) and she moved to Jersey. He used to describe her as the most unhappy woman alive. She had a bubbling social life which she abandoned to avoid paying tax. She ended uphaving one visiter a year-my father- and he used to say I'm off to Jersey to visit the most unhappy woman alive.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/marketactivity?id=1.101416490&selectionId=1405187
Not a lot of volume around.
@BBCNormanS: Tory sources say key issue is whether Ed Miliband repeats claim that Lord Fink is "dodgy"
@BBCNormanS: Labour sources say Ed Miliband did not call Lord Fink "dodgy" but did question his "tax avoidance activities"
Cameron won due to the colossal awfulness of Gordon Brown's government and the recession/depression. The only time he had convincing leads was from 2008-late 2009 when this was at its most obvious.
It still seems to me that if Labour have a decent credible leader, and the economy is not perceived to be a weakness for them, the electorate gravitate by default to Labour. Or, at least, enough of them to make their re-election no real contest.
This is a serious problem for the Conservative Party.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 53m 53 minutes ago
For avoidance of doubt: Ed Miliband must today repeat phrases "tax avoidance activities of L*** ****" and "dodgy donor". Or he's bottled it.
1. Ed Miliband went into PMQs knowing no more than Lord Fink had a Swiss bank account at HSBC. He chose to infer things by innuendo that, had he said them outside of Parliamentary privilege, would potentially have left him at least exposed to a libel writ. Basically, what he said was based on no background knowledge of the financial affairs of Lord Fink. But it was politically expedient to have a go at a man against whom there wasn't even a prima facie case of wrongdoing - except in Ed's head. Because he was a Tory.
So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
Alternatively:
2. Ed Miliband went into PMQs armed with leaked information about Lord Fink's financial affairs. Information which Ed had no legal right to access. Now, that might be politically expedient to use when you are in a hole. But releasing that information in a partial way would gravely put at risk any subsequent prosecutions that might otherwise have a chance of success.
So he would put the proper course of justice behind political advantage. And I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister.
They themselves constantly ( and as it happens correctly ) accuse Trade Unions of buying influence over the Labour Party and its policies .
Just as the Unions have the Labour Party as theirs so the super rich , tax avoiders and tax dodgers have the Conservative Party as theirs to look after their interests and to whom they can donate their millions and receive peerages and protection in return .
**Innocent face**
i don't really understand why she decided to move to Jersey just to save tax. Surely the money left to her by her husband would, if she had a competent lawyer, have been left to her in a tax efficient way - perhaps something like the arch nemesis of tax avoiders Ed Miliband's father did - and so she would not have been hit by IHT. Then any competent lawyer would surely have been able to advise her how to minimise further tax liabilities on income and capital gains so that she was not haemorrhaging money to the state if she didn't want to.
I would have thought that a good lawyer would have been able to advise his client sufficiently well that what marginal amount she would save in tax by moving to Jersey would be nothing compared to the upheaval in her life.
To me it sounds more like the lady had a few issues or was badly advised. and if she didn't have a social life in Jersey, a very sociable and welcoming place, then it would appear that it was her fault and not the fault of moving to a low tax jurisdiction.
Even the Conservative benches waved their order papers and at the start of his speech one Tory shouted "Speak for England" echoing the famous intervention from Leo Amery in 1939.
From wiki :
Amery is famous for two moments of high drama in the House of Commons early in the Second World War. On 2 September 1939, Neville Chamberlain spoke in a Commons debate and said (in effect) that he was not declaring war on Germany immediately for having invaded Poland. This greatly angered Amery and was felt by many present to be out of touch with the temper of the British people. As Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was absent, Arthur Greenwood stood up in his place and announced that he was speaking for Labour. Amery called out to him across the floor, "Speak for England!"—which carried the undeniable implication that Chamberlain was not.
The second incident occurred during the Norway Debate in 1940. After a string of military and naval disasters had been announced, Amery famously attacked Chamberlain's government, quoting Oliver Cromwell:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
If you can't see the difference, there's no point in engaging with you further.
Sometimes you go by feel and I have bad feelings for Miliband over this.
12/02/2015 08:50
Another Thursday and another invitation from Question Time. Not.In.A.Million.Years. Holding out for @bbcthisweek, with @afneil and Portillo.
But 2), someone at HMRC leaking confidential tax information to a politician, would be dynamite.
Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister
Found the link from a Guardian article on greatest Parliamentary speeches they ran when Hansard was highlighting their archives to celebrate a centenary.
At the time I thought that was a little bit melodramatic, but now I realise it was very prophetic.
"So he would trash the reputation of an otherwise innocent man to gain political advantage. I find that troubling in a man who would be our Prime Minister."
Looks like you want to be a backer in one and a layer in the other!
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/17/have-the-tories-broken-50/
The currrent partisan approach consists of any of the following:
- you're a kipper
- we're better off without you
- you're a racist\homophobe\closet Nazi
- look what we have done and be grateful
- you're solely responsible for Ed getting elected
- Mad Red Ed will kill your family though have you seen how useless he is
- etc.
None of them ever seem to be able to engage with where it has gone wrong for a chunk of their natural consitituency. I voted blue in the total no-hoper of 1997 when any logical analysis would say it was a waste of time. But I won't in 2015 when on paper it's a much tighter election. If I was at CCHQ that would at least be raising questions and getting people looking at what went awry.
My own father went to the IOM, not specifically to avoid tax, but no sooner than he had arrived he was diagnosed with what appeared to be terminal cancer. We were glad of his decision, but we then had to set about ensuring that the very sticky matter of domicile was covered as far as possible, and you never know for certain if it has been. [The case of Sir Charles Clore is instructive; he went through gyrations in Monaco, but after his death, and expensive, drawn-out litigation, it was determined he had never lost his English domicile, and the tax would have to be paid]
After stressful years of this doubt hanging over us, our story had a happy ending. At one point facing a liability of nearly £300k, my Dad was cured, the Finance Act 2008 came to the rescue, he sold up and returned to the UK, made gifts to his children, and died of "old age", the world's longest recorded survivor of his type of cancer, 19 years after diagnosis!
1. You seem very sure that Fink will be unprepared to answer questions. How do you know this?
2. A libel suit - if that's what results - is very much about what is legal. If Milliband makes allegations which are unsubstantiated and found by a court of law to be libellous, that is to my mind pretty unacceptable. I expect a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition to uphold the rule of law not undermine it. I expect I'm not alone in having that view.
A candidate for Prime Minister should have integrity. Libelling someone - if that is the case - is not the mark of someone with integrity.
Shareholders would only be concerned if allegations were made against the company.
Lots of "ifs" there of course. So let's see.
Turned out to be a pyrrhic victory in the end as HMRC lost the case twice in court after being offered a substantial settlement previously. They cost the tax payer a lot of money.
http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2014/07/hmrc-guilty.html
The Liberal Democrats are now languishing on just 6% in the latest opinion poll for the Evening Standard newspaper. That's their lowest position in the polls in 25 years and puts them in fifth behind the Greens and UKIP.
2500 Labour
1000 UKIP
800 Conservative
Indicate I'm in a target seat ?
6 per cent on MORI for the LDs - is very poor.
It's funny that his portfolio holds stocks in the very financial institutions he claims to despise, such as MAN and Barclays.
Or don't we have the Members who can do it any longer?
1) Has everyone seen this article?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31066643
"Three of the UK's most experienced election-watchers have predicted the Tories will do much better than expected in next May's general election but they still expect another hung parliament. "
2) I've been reading Nicola Sturgeon's speech of yesterday:
http://scottishgovernment.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5604&NewsAreaID=139&ClientID=1
Regular readers won't be surprised that I don't entirely agree with her, but what struck me most was how impressive the speech was. It's coherent, well-argued, and engages with the issues rather than squirting random smears around,. Above all it reads like a serious politician who's actually thought about the options and has genuinely considered the implications of various options.
I rather think that, if Ed Miliband had given this speech at the Labour conference last October, with minor modifications to the Scotland-specific references, and followed through with policy development based on it, Labour would be cruising towards a majority.
I can understand them being unpopular in power having to clean up Labour's mess, but blowing a 20%+ polling lead in Opposition and running that horror show of an election campaign is pretty much unforgivable....
You're thinking of the ICM wisdom poll ?