Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.
Well, I haven't seen many Labour supporters criticise Ed for smearing Lord Fink. On the contrary, most seem to be celebrating the smear as some kind of great success. It's pretty disgusting, however you look at it.
You will go to heaven; I will go to hell. You are good; I am bad. And so the world turns.
It's the standard Southam response when he's comprehensively lost the argument. Keep on saying it and it may come true:)
Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:
* Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18 (Rounding diff'ce 1)
It's hard to see how a government could be formed from that?
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.
I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!
Except the house was sold a while back.
Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.
It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.
(the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)
The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.
Yes, so you have said quite a few times now, but you are wilfully ignoring our resident lawyers who are telling you its the intent at the time of signature that matters, not how things fortuitously worked out at some later date. What was the intention of Messrs Miliband when they signed the said document in 1994 is the question that matters.
Their intention was to do as their mother asked them at a time when they were grieving their father. I am not sure they went into the minutiae. Maybe they should have done.
Still, the issue is out there and the public will decide. My guess is that it will make very little difference to anything.
“Mr Baldwin should now examine his conscience and decide whether or not he can continue to speak to the media on your behalf. If he chooses not to resign his post, then you should have the decency to sack him yourself, and make a full, comprehensive and public apology to the Dowler family for his actions.”
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
What with Unions, plutocrats and stolen money they refuse to return, I don't think any of the traditional parties supporters have much moral high ground to stand on.
Lets see how the Sunday's round out 'a good week for Ed'.........
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
The real problem with the definition of tax avoidance is that it covers a multitude of distinctly dodgy schemes dreamed up by overpaid accountants and lawyers (is my jealousy showing) to create artificial losses, hide profits and create allowances that were not contemplated when those poor innocents drafted the legislation.
Because they have been able to get away with the canard that this is "legal" (although of course it has increasingly been found not to be and the future is bleak in light of GAAR) those who have taken advantage of such schemes have completely falsely claimed to be on some moral high ground which of course they are not.
Such schemes have nothing to do with the encouragement that the government gives us to put some money into a pension or to improve the saving rate by an ISA.
I personally think that wealthy people who use such schemes are contemptible scum (yes, it is that jealousy again) who wouldn't recognise a moral if they were hit over the head with it. I also find it disgusting that they seek to hide behind Joe Public who buys a carton of fags at duty free on his return from his package holiday. I have more respect for drunk drivers than these people who want to live in our society but resent paying a share of the huge rewards it gives them to keep it going and to provide for those less fortunate.
Are the Milibands to be ranked amongst this pond life at the time they did the deed of family arrangement prior to the 2007 changes and not knowing that dear mother would still be around 20 years later? Nah. It is fun to tweak the tail of a sanctimonious git but this charge won't stick.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
What with Unions, plutocrats and stolen money they refuse to return, I don't think any of the traditional parties supporters have much moral high ground to stand on.
Lets see how the Sunday's round out 'a good week for Ed'.........
In denial my friend.
So you think Tim Montgomerie has this wrong?
The sheer shallowness of what is coming through in current threads is pathetic.
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) 13/02/2015 09:50 The Sun Says today: Boris has a better grasp of popular policies than most other Tories combined. pic.twitter.com/Q6v2wA72l2
Would that include his amnesty for illegal immigrants?
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
As I said immediately after Pmqs...
The conservatives on here believe that ed is clueless and farage is stupid, and that every time they position themselves against something (political correctness/rich tax avoiders) it is a spectacular gaffe, when in reality it's a deliberate ploy
Ukip voters see farage talk their language and labour supporters see ed standing up to billionaires... It's what they want
At the risk if sounding like Tim, it is amazing that the people on here fall for it every time
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.
Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.
Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
What tax has Ed dodged?
He set out to dodge IHT. By his own lights that makes him a tax dodger.
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
At least it answers the mystery of what the Bankers Bonus Tax is going to be spent upon....
Introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee – a paid starter job for all young people out of work for 12 months or more, which people will have to take up or lose their benefits.
Do you have any evidence that any of the later actually occurred ? Today's revelations imply rather modest provision was made for the independence of his children, whilst resident in another country, and in compliance with the laws of that country, suggesting it was large-scale, artificial or indeed contrived without evidence would seem to me to be a courageous stance.
It's interesting that the Tory line hasn't been closer to what you say here because it's a very fair point and far less dumb than trying to demonise Ed's arrangements whichm whatever else they may be, are old news. I don't know much about Fink's reported tax affairs but taking advantage of actually being non-resident for a few years to allocate income streams, realise gains and so on would be another thing that the profession and HMRC would generally not regard as avoidance. On the face of it, it seems pretty much on a level with the DoV process.
I guess the risk is that a hypothetical super-wealthy individual who has been internationally mobile with massive hedge fund involvement could, hypothetically, have quite a lot of other complex structures which could, in some cases, perhaps be seen as far more clear examples of avoidance. And it might not be smart to defend a particular piece of behaviour which is defensible if it then transfers attention to such other hypothetical arrangements, even if they may of course not exist.
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) 13/02/2015 09:50 The Sun Says today: Boris has a better grasp of popular policies than most other Tories combined. pic.twitter.com/Q6v2wA72l2
Would that include his amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Wouldn't know, but it seems to me the sun would get behind Boris more than Dave
The GE seat spreads on offer this morning appear to be as stuck as Prof. Fisher's latest projection and arrive at very similar numbers too with both Sporting and Spreadex offering mid-spread prices of 284 for the Tories and 276 for Labour.
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
Straw clutching.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler? I'm gobsmacked at the Godwinesque OTT of it.
I'd be insulted to my core if I were even tangentially connected with her family.
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.
Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.
Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
What tax has Ed dodged?
He set out to dodge IHT. By his own lights that makes him a tax dodger.
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
Do you actually, really believe the drivel you have just written ?
That is dynamite. I cannot believe that Ed has said that deeds of variation are disreputable tax avoidance schemes that should not be allowed or indulged in. Blimey - do you have the link?
Gordon Brown said that, but that's not what I said.
Ed doesn't agree he engaged in legitimate tax avoidance.
Ed's point is that he was merely a beneficiary of the deed of variation not the person who agreed it. That said he would have been aware of the change that he was suddenly getting a % of the family home before his mother died.....
Not an expert in these matters, as I'm not a tax avoider like Ed, but I believe he had to sign off on the agreement. Happy to be told otherwise.
Today you don't. I don't know if you had to back then.
Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:
* Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18 (Rounding diff'ce 1)
It's hard to see how a government could be formed from that?
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:
* Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18 (Rounding diff'ce 1)
It's hard to see how a government could be formed from that?
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
On those numbers I can see a supply and confidence for Labour from the SNP, PC and Greens voting with the Gov't, some Labour MPs resigning the whip - Danczuk, John Woodcock top of the list and the Lib Dems abstaining on the confidence motion.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
Tax Avoidance is making use of "constructions" which allows tax not to be paid where otherwise it would be paid. In other words, Parliament was "agnostic" about it. Parliament did not intend for such avoidance to take place and Parliament can and does close down such loopholes.
An absurd and unconstitutional understanding of the position. 'A subject is only to be taxed upon clear words, not upon "intendment" or upon the "equity" of an Act' (WT Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, 323 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce). This is because it is for Parliament alone, and not the courts or the executive, to define taxes and to charge the subject to them. It would be a usurpation of Parliament's prerogative for taxing statutes to be construed according to some nebulous subjective concept of parliamentary intention. It is well established that Parliamentary intention is nothing more or less than the meaning of the words which Parliament uses (R. (on the application of Spath Holme Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 AC 349, 397-398 (HL) per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). If Parliament intends an activity to be subject to a charge, it must say so in clear words. The number of cases where a construction of a taxing statute contrary to clear parliamentary intent is endorsed by the courts is vanishingly small. Can you name any?
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
So the Milibands used a piece of Thatcher legislation to avoid tax engage in legitimate tax planning?
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
Honesty at last. Nothing to do with legality or morality, everything to do with politics. The fact that the name of a man who has done nothing illegal is dragged through the mud comes a distant second to that.
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.
Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.
Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
What tax has Ed dodged?
He set out to dodge IHT. By his own lights that makes him a tax dodger.
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
This tax war is a zero sum game for politicians in the two main parties. They end up smearing each other and driving the polling of both parties down even lower. If only they learned that when chucking the smelly stuff some of it sticks to the chucker and the retaliation brings your vote down. Call it the sub 30% strategy?
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
It might be right on balance; I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't as clear cut as that.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've been very struck by a change in attitude towards Ed amongst friends and acquaintances over the last couple of months. Whereas previously he was seen as a bit of a joke but fairly harmless, attitudes seem to be hardening into a much greater hostility. Now, these are mainly Conservative voters in this leafy part of Southern England, so I'm not claiming they are representative of the country as a whole. However, I believe they are representative of many Con-UKIP waverers.
Perhaps the election polarisation is beginning to happen, we shall see.
Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.
It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
It's amazing how many "completely legal" tax avoidance schemes come with a legal contingency fund to fight the tax man should they come knocking. And are then ruled illegitimate under the GAAR.
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
Straw clutching.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Depressing that Montgomerie clings to the sad stale mid 20th century British thinking that successful people should be ashamed of their wealth - how very old world.
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
Straw clutching.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Surely it depends whether the media focus shifts to "wealthy Labour donors and/or politicians"?
I'm sure there are plenty of multi-millionaire lefties (just mike Ed Miliband actually) who might have skeletons in the closet....
Sunday papers going through Leftie supporters tax arrangement's with a fine tooth comb right now I'm sure....
***IF*** Ed can survive the Sunday's without anything major blowing up in his face, then we'll be able to say he's scored a hit. Probably.
But he is playing quite a dangerous game with this stuff, IMO and it's certainly not without risk to him or Labour.
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Lots of people don't put money into ISAs each tax year. Are they allowed to exercise a deed of variation in May to allow them to utilise last year's allowance?
I agree with Mike, by the way, that despite some pressure on Ed this isn't fertile ground for the Tories.
This is all so tedious. Labour have been all over the place on welfare - killing off jobs for long term JSA bods as *slave labour* and now they're advocating as policy claimants losing their benefits entirely unless they take a *slave labour* job?
I really can't be bothered to even listen to them. And as a political nerd it just shows how piss-poor their messaging is. I'm not even worried enough to read their rubbish. At least with Mandy, I felt the danger - EdM is a numpty.
At least it answers the mystery of what the Bankers Bonus Tax is going to be spent upon....
Introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee – a paid starter job for all young people out of work for 12 months or more, which people will have to take up or lose their benefits.
Mr. Ajob, I don't think, from what I've heard, the Italian chap could by any reasonable measure be expected to pay British income tax. Nor have I heard anything wrong about Lord Fink having a Swiss bank account whilst living and working in Switzerland.
Mr. Smithson, that's the logic of praising Didius Julianus for becoming emperor. Yes, he did it, and bought supreme power, bully for him. But what good did it do the empire? Or him, for that matter? His time in power was so brief as to make Caesar's dictatorial reign like the life of Methuselah.
Miliband's talents seem limited to harming British industry, occupational fratricide and smear.
Out of interest how much does it cost to set up a Deed of Variation and the associated trusts?
I've just done it. My mother has died and I'm her executor. She left me a sum of money. I don't need it and I have varied the will to leave it to my child, her grandchild who needs it more than me.
You don't need a solicitor. It doesn't even have to be a witnessed deed. You simply write a dated letter within two years of the death making clear what the variation is and that the provisions of the 1984 Inheritance Act shall apply. If any other beneficiary is disadvantaged they also need to agree in writing. But DYOR.
"This variation is made by me Barnesian of [address]. Mrs Barnesian of [address] died on 12 February 2015. In her will she left me a legacy of £10,000. I redirect that legacy to my son John Barnesian. I intend that the provisions of section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 shall apply to this redirection of that legacy.
Signed …................................................................. Barnesian
Date …..................................................................."
You file the letter with your will and other financial papers. That's it. It is not a complicated technical scheme that abuses legislation. Section 142(1) of the 1984 Act is specifically for this purpose.
Many thanks for taking the trouble. As I am in a similar position and need to do a similar deed, it is very useful to have my own understanding confirmed. (DYOR and all that, already done, of course). But what I could not find out was whether the letter had to be addressed to anyone or just 'to whom it may concern'. Did you come to any conclusion on that, please?
It doesn't have to be addressed or sent to anyone. It is just a record of the variation. You keep it with your papers in case your executor in due course has to show it to HMRC to prove that you didn't in fact inherit the money from the estate.
In the very unlikely event that more IHT has to be paid from the varied estate then you have to let HMRC know.
Almist none of those schemes are illegal by the letter of the law. Buy they are not legitimate tax planning.
It is an old and tiresome fallacy that there are degrees of illegality. There are not. All lawful tax planning and avoidance is by definition legitimate, and an agent will often be under a fiduciary duty to his principal to ensure his principal's tax arrangements are so arranged.
It's amazing how many "completely legal" tax avoidance schemes come with a legal contingency fund to fight the tax man should they come knocking. And are then ruled illegitimate under the GAAR.
Yep, and what bugs me about Ed claiming the moral high ground on Tax Avoidance is that it was this government who introduced the legislation and who have actually taken strides to closing down the loopholes; compared with when Ed was in government when the square-root of feck-all was done.
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
Straw clutching.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Depressing that Montgomerie clings to the sad stale mid 20th century British thinking that successful people should be ashamed of their wealth - how very old world.
I don't think Montgomerie is clinging to anything, he's just calling the effects as he sees them.
I'm amazed you think that such a Frankinstein Coalition could be reanimated. It'd make the micro-splits of @JohnLoony's Marxist-Lenninists and Lenninist-Marxists look substantial.
Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:
* Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18 (Rounding diff'ce 1)
It's hard to see how a government could be formed from that?
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
Stephen Fisher's updated forecast this morning reports that for the sixth week in succession the polling input data for the two major parties remains unchanged with Labour on 33% and the Tories on 32%. Accordingly there is little change (compared with last week) in the number of seats he forecasts as being won by the various parties as follows:
* Includes 41 SNP, UKIP, 3 PC 3, Greens 1, N.I. 18 (Rounding diff'ce 1)
It's hard to see how a government could be formed from that?
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
On those numbers I can see a supply and confidence for Labour from the SNP, PC and Greens voting with the Gov't, some Labour MPs resigning the whip - Danczuk, John Woodcock top of the list and the Lib Dems abstaining on the confidence motion.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
The great thing for Miliband is that as long as rich Tory donors are making the headlines the better it is for LAB. That some many Tory posters on here are in denial about this is amazing.
Tim Montgomerie's got this right: "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
So a good week for Ed.
It may not be as clear-cut as that. Of course those who hate the Tories will agree that this all shows how terrible the Tories are. However, the Mail front page was pretty bad for Ed and we may see some polarisation of views; realisation of quite what Ed Miliband is like is beginning to get through and I think will shore up the Conservative vote especially amongst Tory/UKIP waverers.
Straw clutching.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Depressing that Montgomerie clings to the sad stale mid 20th century British thinking that successful people should be ashamed of their wealth - how very old world.
I don't think Montgomerie is clinging to anything, he's just calling the effects as he sees them.
I'm not a fan of Montgomerie - he's not called much right.
OGH is right, as is Tim (Montgomerie!). It is a hugely effective line of attack to take and one, pace the Black & White Ball, that is hugely difficult for Tories to counter on the doorstep or anywhere else.
It is classically do as I say not as I do super hypocritcal (Ed of course for example could have ended the stamp duty issue at any time during his tenure in govt...).
And of course super-effective.
The question is not that it is effective but it is whether the constituency who adores this line of attack is stable or sizeable enough to actually swing the election for Lab.
The economy still trumps all attack lines of this sort and on the long, cold, lonely walk to the polling station the thought going through peoples' minds (IMO) regarding the two parties will still be:
Cons: Nasty...effective...support their friends...b&stards...competent. Lab: Partly to blame..no money left..huge deficit..incompetent...might repeat if allowed to.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Lots of people don't put money into ISAs each tax year. Are they allowed to exercise a deed of variation in May to allow them to utilise last year's allowance? I
I can't speak on ISAs, but in general you are allowed to amend your tax return, including more favourably, up to a year after filing it.
Similarly, in certain circs, you can amend a will.
Not sure what your point is, other than the rules on ISAs should be relaxed?
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.
Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.
Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
What tax has Ed dodged?
He set out to dodge IHT. By his own lights that makes him a tax dodger.
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
So, in fact, he has dodged no tax.
He has dodged no tax in the sense that if I go to shoot someone and miss I have not shot anyone.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
Agreed. It's amazing how Labour MPs never lose their seats. God knows what everyone is going on about Scotland for.
When you think you're morally superior as a human being - there isn't anything that will shake your self-belief. Thinking your opponents are a lower form of life is the ultimate excuse for whatever tactics you employ.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
I wouldn't put it in quite such a hyperbolic manner, but the thrust is correct. And the reason is that socialism is morally superior; so as long as you're fighting against the Evil Tories (tm), you can be forgiven your own failures.
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
It might be right on balance; I didn't say it was wrong. I said it wasn't as clear cut as that.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've been very struck by a change in attitude towards Ed amongst friends and acquaintances over the last couple of months. Whereas previously he was seen as a bit of a joke but fairly harmless, attitudes seem to be hardening into a much greater hostility. Now, these are mainly Conservative voters in this leafy part of Southern England, so I'm not claiming they are representative of the country as a whole. However, I believe they are representative of many Con-UKIP waverers.
Perhaps the election polarisation is beginning to happen, we shall see.
I have to say that I have also been aware of that. The attitude towards Ed has been changing from mockery and superior (justified or not) amusement to outright dislike and hostility.
Does this indicate, despite some appearances to the contrary, that Ed is finally making his mark and giving himself some definition? Maybe.
'According to The Guardian, there was no tax advantage to the deed of variation.'
A deed of variation reportedly changed his will so that Marion Miliband’s estate was reduced. Instead of leaving 100% of the house if she died, she got 60% while the brothers each received 20%.
Had she retained a 100% share, and her home had one day been sold for £575,000, the IHT bill would have been £170,000; after the deed of variation the same event would have triggered a bill of £78,000.
The calculations are purely notional, and have nothing to do with the "sale" of the property. They are predicated on Mrs Miliband dying not long after Ralph, which didn't occur. It was just a belt-and-braces exercise to guard against a worst-case scenario.
I state again. They saved nothing They have saved nothing They probably will save nothing
You need to look at intention.
They were putting in place a scheme that *would* have saved substantial money had certain unfortunate circumstances occurred.
I don't see any "scheme". The exercise was merely to take advantage of something that Parliament had explicitly given to Ralph, but his will had failed to utilise effectively.
Lots of people don't put money into ISAs each tax year. Are they allowed to exercise a deed of variation in May to allow them to utilise last year's allowance? I
I can't speak on ISAs, but in general you are allowed to amend your tax return, including more favourably, up to a year after filing it.
Similarly, in certain circs, you can amend a will.
Not sure what your point is, other than the rules on ISAs should be relaxed?
My point is that it is not usually possible to backdate intentions. Amending your tax return is usually a matter of correcting the record, not changing your actions [there are exceptions].
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
Agreed. It's amazing how Labour MPs never lose their seats. God knows what everyone is going on about Scotland for.
Scotland has a new more-morally superior lefty alternative who are fighting the Evil Tories harder. Labour being punished for siding with the enemy during IndyRef.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
Jesus, Ben, you're very one-eyed. If you can't [or more likely, won't] read between the lines of Nick's tweet and the Telegraph article then there's no helping you.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
I thought we'd agreed the facts don't matter, the politics do. The politics are that Baldwin, appears to have taken solace in this being a Dowler moment. Or is the politics angle only bad if it favours the Tories?
Mr. Taffys, I wouldn't get excited either way. Long time till the election. This is like the preamble between Septimius Severus, Albinus and Niger. Too far out to call the final result.
My point is that it is not usually possible to backdate intentions. Amending your tax return is usually a matter of correcting the record, not changing your actions [there are exceptions].
Not really true. A whole raft of claims and elections have a 2-year window from the end of the accounting period to be lodged. This remains the case even if the tax return is submitted earlier. There are exceptions (e.g. the foreign branch exemption is irrevocable and has to be made before the start of the first period in scope) but in general you have quite a while to work out what your deeming and taxing intentions are.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
I thought we'd agreed the facts don't matter, the politics do. The politics are that Baldwin, appears to have taken solace in this being a Dowler moment. Or is the politics angle only bad if it favours the Tories?
Neither the facts nor the politics favour the Tories.
If the Lib Dems get anywhere near UKIP, the Populus tables will be a psephological marvel that generations will come to view as the very definition of a dreadful sample.
To be honest. the tax avoidance thing is now getting boring but there was a bright interlude this morning. Nicky Campbell on R5L interviewed a woman called Hattie Jamieson (I think) and really ripped her apart. I felt sorry for her as she admitted not knowing anything about complicated financial thingys like Deeds of Variations etc.
Neither do I, but Campbell pointed out that she was the Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury so perhaps she ought to have a clue.
I suppose he had a point.
Edit: I gather she's called Cathy Jamieson but should she be out on her own?
So far. But its high risk. Several newspapers will be going over the public records of any labour donor, politician or business interest they can find, if any of that looks a bit... dodgy... its going to be all over the front pages and he is going to look a complete hypocrite. It might work, but "back to financial basics" is a dangerous game to play.
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of individual out of their allegiance to Labour. It doesn't matter if Miliband is shown to be a hypocritical moral incompetent: Labour voters expect nothing better of their politicians and don't think it matters.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
Agreed. It's amazing how Labour MPs never lose their seats. God knows what everyone is going on about Scotland for.
Scotland has a new more-morally superior lefty alternative who are fighting the Evil Tories harder. Labour being punished for siding with the enemy during IndyRef.
Labour isn't losing to the SNP because Labour's Scotch MPs are tax dodgers, or expense fiddlers, or kiddy fiddlers, or perjurers, or war criminals, or any other kind of offender.
Other parties do lose and have lost otherwise safe seats because their supporters won't stand for even a strong suspicion of any of it: Hamilton, Thorpe; Huhne too, arguably.
What is unique about Labour is that we have had many, many examples of sleaze, corruption, tolerance of criminality, and actual criminality by its representatives; yet it is hard to think of one example anywhere of this harming the core Labour vote. They simply do not mind and only regard as an issue if it's another party. Perhaps it is a hangover from the party's closed-shop demarcation line roots? "Oi, you can't fiddle your expenses, you're not Labour!"
Mr. Taffys, I wouldn't get excited either way. Long time till the election. This is like the preamble between Septimius Severus, Albinus and Niger. Too far out to call the final result.
I'm only touching the news as much as the average bod right now and WTF is this quote about being a bit rude to EdM = Milly Dowler?
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
It seems Nick Robinson himself brought Milly Dowler into it.
Really?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
Jesus, Ben, you're very one-eyed. If you can't [or more likely, won't] read between the lines of Nick's tweet and the Telegraph article then there's no helping you.
Nick Robinson has more or less confirmed the phrase originated from him.
"Media foes of Ed M generating row re Milly Dowler. I reported aides saw this as moment to stand up to powerful like when that story broke"
It certainly seem's the Tories have taken an immediate hit with taxgate - All-be-it the changes within MOE.
When was the fieldwork?
I see from the tables that the fieldwork was 11th - 12th (ended yesterday) so this does cover taxgate. Tories taken a slight hit but well within MOE, and Labour no boost.
It won't be anyway, given the sum involved and the law change in 2008.
The question of whether or not there was an actual benefit is a canard floated by Miliband to avoid the real issue, which was the intention of the Milibands when the deed was executed. The only possible intention was to reduce a possible future charge to tax, perfectly legitimate, sensible and advisable, of course, but manifestly hypocritical on Ed Miliband's part, given his stance that everyone else is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax. The man is a rapacious charlatan.
Ed was 25, his Dad had just died and his Mum asked him to sign a document. The house in question was then sold and Ed paid CGT on his share. If the Tories wish to paint that as hypocritical in order to make Ed seems as grubby as big ticket tax avoiders who pay accountants a fortune to ensure they do not have to pay a penny more to the Inland Revenue than necessary, even though they will never need or use the money they save and people are currently being thrown out of their homes because they have one more bedroom than the government has decided they need, then that is fine by me.
Has Ed ever said that everyone "is under a duty to maximise their assessment or charge to tax" or have you just made that up?
By his own lights, living in a house worth £3 million, Milibung is a rich, rich man. He should close this down by 1/ paying the IHT this ruse set out to dodge and 2/ confirm on the record that if he wins the GE, he and every member of the Labour party will pay the mansion tax on any house they own that is liable to it out of their own pocket and will not expense it.
Will Ed do this? No, because he is a tax dodging scumbag.
What tax has Ed dodged?
He set out to dodge IHT. By his own lights that makes him a tax dodger.
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
Do you actually, really believe the drivel you have just written ?
My point is that it is not usually possible to backdate intentions. Amending your tax return is usually a matter of correcting the record, not changing your actions [there are exceptions].
Not really true. A whole raft of claims and elections have a 2-year window from the end of the accounting period to be lodged. This remains the case even if the tax return is submitted earlier. There are exceptions (e.g. the foreign branch exemption is irrevocable and has to be made before the start of the first period in scope) but in general you have quite a while to work out what your deeming and taxing intentions are.
Fair enough. And were anyone to change their deeming and taxing intentions after the event, it would probably be fair enough to call that tax avoidance. All the more so, then, changing someone else's intentions after the event.
I'm not criticising the Milibands for executing the DoV - it's perfectly sensible and we've clearly permitted it to prevent people losing out through poor planning. Though it would be worth someone asking Ed if he thought his dad really wanted his will amended.
How much tax did Ed avoid paying as a result of this deed?
To be determined as it wouldn't be payable until his mother dies. But I think I saw the house is now worth c. £2m, in which case the 40% stake that he and his brother received would be worth £800K. If it doesn't increase in value before IHT comes due, then it would be the equivalent of about £120-320K (split equally between him and his brother) with the range dependent on the value of Mrs Miliband's residual estate.
I think most of Ed's voters would be very very happy with a tax saving of £60K (50% of the bottom end of the range). I know I would be!
Except the house was sold a while back.
Yes, but the value was retained & effectively passed down a generation outside of Mrs Miliband's estate, so the logic remains the same. CGT would have been payable, but only on gain over the rebased probate value.
It's entirely legitimate and not particularly complex. Rather like Stanley Fink's arrangements. That's the issue I have: Miliband is happy to smear and is an absolute hypocrite.
(the comparison with Jimmy Carr that @Roger makes is not relevant as - IIRC - Carr was allegedly engaged in much more complex schemes to reduce his income tax payable to low single digits)
The value has been realised. Ed's Mum is still alive. No tax was avoided.
And the proceeds are outside Ed's Mum's estate. So no IHT will be payable in future on them. Lucky Ed.
Before that comes the public finances data for January. I have read that this is a huge month because it's the month when Britain's small businesses and self employed return.
Plus, Osborne may have a war chest because gilt coupons are going through the floor
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of
Labour isn't losing to the SNP because Labour's Scotch MPs are tax dodgers, or expense fiddlers, or kiddy fiddlers, or perjurers, or war criminals, or any other kind of offender.
Other parties do lose and have lost otherwise safe seats because their supporters won't stand for even a strong suspicion of any of it: Hamilton, Thorpe; Huhne too, arguably.
What is unique about Labour is that we have had many, many examples of sleaze, corruption, tolerance of criminality, and actual criminality by its representatives; yet it is hard to think of one example anywhere of this harming the core Labour vote. They simply do not mind and only regard as an issue if it's another party. Perhaps it is a hangover from the party's closed-shop demarcation line roots? "Oi, you can't fiddle your expenses, you're not Labour!"
It just comes down to wickedness. Labour supporters are low-life scum. That said, I could have sworn that a fair few Labour MPs implicated in the expenses scandal lost their seats at the last election. I am not sure which perjurers, war criminals and kiddy fiddlers retained them.
They walk into this simple trap every single time.
Recalls the energy stuff where they artfully positioned themselves as defenders of the energy giants.
Don't be silly, of course the Conservatives know that this is a 'trap'. We just don't think that it's a trap that should be avoided, because we are interested in good government, not smearing and class warfare.
Labour supporters seem to disagree, but that's something for their consciences.
Indeed. But I think we all realise that the Tories are pure as the driven snow; simple, selfless naïfs seeking only to enhance the lives of all; and that Labour supporters are wicked, cruel and without any principles whatsoever. The world is so unfair.
Nothing more comical in politics than when Tories start groping around for the moral high ground.
I'm always very doubtful about ascribing specific events so quickly to poll changes. It might be but we need to wait.
It's not exactly a game-changer of a poll anyway. The lack of upwards movement in the Tory vote is starting to make me think it will never happen. Maybe swingback is finished? If one excludes Scotland how much has the Labour Tory swing actually been in the last 6 months? If it weren't for unusual events north of the border I'd be tempted to think we might be heading towards a Labour majority again, after a period when the polls were closing.
@CD13 Not knowing things is not necessarily a bar to your job prospects. In fact, some cynics might say that it is a real positive with some companies.
To be clear: Ed Miliband's tax affairs are fair political game, sauce for the goose and gander and all that. I have no issue with the Daily Mail's headline, but...
On the Milly angle - either Tom Baldwin has come out with a comparison so vile he should probably be sacked on the spot or Nick Robinson has made a genuine error of reporting judgement. One of the two.
Before that comes the public finances data for January. I have read that this is a huge month because it's the month when Britain's small businesses and self employed return.
Plus, Osborne may have a war chest because gilt coupons are going through the floor
Well I have to say that my payment really hurt. Almost as much as the fact that George has not written personally to say thank you.
Comments
Looks like the GE campaign has started!
I suppose Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green would just about get to a majority, but then you have to think some Labour MP's will withdraw from the party in protest at Lab going into government with SNP.
It seem's increasingly likely that no government will be viable on May 7th.
Still, the issue is out there and the public will decide. My guess is that it will make very little difference to anything.
“Mr Baldwin should now examine his conscience and decide whether or not he can continue to speak to the media on your behalf. If he chooses not to resign his post, then you should have the decency to sack him yourself, and make a full, comprehensive and public apology to the Dowler family for his actions.”
Lets see how the Sunday's round out 'a good week for Ed'.........
Because they have been able to get away with the canard that this is "legal" (although of course it has increasingly been found not to be and the future is bleak in light of GAAR) those who have taken advantage of such schemes have completely falsely claimed to be on some moral high ground which of course they are not.
Such schemes have nothing to do with the encouragement that the government gives us to put some money into a pension or to improve the saving rate by an ISA.
I personally think that wealthy people who use such schemes are contemptible scum (yes, it is that jealousy again) who wouldn't recognise a moral if they were hit over the head with it. I also find it disgusting that they seek to hide behind Joe Public who buys a carton of fags at duty free on his return from his package holiday. I have more respect for drunk drivers than these people who want to live in our society but resent paying a share of the huge rewards it gives them to keep it going and to provide for those less fortunate.
Are the Milibands to be ranked amongst this pond life at the time they did the deed of family arrangement prior to the 2007 changes and not knowing that dear mother would still be around 20 years later? Nah. It is fun to tweak the tail of a sanctimonious git but this charge won't stick.
So you think Tim Montgomerie has this wrong?
The sheer shallowness of what is coming through in current threads is pathetic.
I get the feeling Mr Miliband may have woken them up .
The conservatives on here believe that ed is clueless and farage is stupid, and that every time they position themselves against something (political correctness/rich tax avoiders) it is a spectacular gaffe, when in reality it's a deliberate ploy
Ukip voters see farage talk their language and labour supporters see ed standing up to billionaires... It's what they want
At the risk if sounding like Tim, it is amazing that the people on here fall for it every time
As he is a rich, rich man, living in a mansion, he should now cough up the tax he intended to dodge. He should also repay all the tax he dodged by claiming things on his expenses on which normal people would have had to pay tax.
For example, he no doubts eats subsidised food in the HoC canteen. He should hand over the tax he saves by not having to pay for food out of taxed income, like us plebs.
I think he may actually be the most vile Labour leader ever, and that is a high bar when you consider he is up against Blair, Brown, and Wislon.
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/110851130494/labour-publishes-banking-reform-plans-with-new
At least it answers the mystery of what the Bankers Bonus Tax is going to be spent upon....
Introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee – a paid starter job for all young people out of work for 12 months or more, which people will have to take up or lose their benefits.
I guess the risk is that a hypothetical super-wealthy individual who has been internationally mobile with massive hedge fund involvement could, hypothetically, have quite a lot of other complex structures which could, in some cases, perhaps be seen as far more clear examples of avoidance. And it might not be smart to defend a particular piece of behaviour which is defensible if it then transfers attention to such other hypothetical arrangements, even if they may of course not exist.
What's that I hear? is it the sound of Middle England waking from a long slumber?
Was Tim Montgomerie's comment correct? "Ed Miliband standing up to wealthy Tory donor. Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Correction. believED.
Suddenly ed's nastiness has given them a cause.
I'd be insulted to my core if I were even tangentially connected with her family.
Ed Miliband PM but not for too long.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31446635
"Brian Lewis from Ascot said: "I think it's outrageous. Brian is a good name for a horse." "
That's a complete misunderstanding I'm afraid. It's labour that brought that horrible case into this.
'Whatever the merits of the case, Ed Miliband wins the politics."
Even if Ed appears to be a hypocrite?
I know this is anecdotal, but I've been very struck by a change in attitude towards Ed amongst friends and acquaintances over the last couple of months. Whereas previously he was seen as a bit of a joke but fairly harmless, attitudes seem to be hardening into a much greater hostility. Now, these are mainly Conservative voters in this leafy part of Southern England, so I'm not claiming they are representative of the country as a whole. However, I believe they are representative of many Con-UKIP waverers.
Perhaps the election polarisation is beginning to happen, we shall see.
I'm sure there are plenty of multi-millionaire lefties (just mike Ed Miliband actually) who might have skeletons in the closet....
Sunday papers going through Leftie supporters tax arrangement's with a fine tooth comb right now I'm sure....
***IF*** Ed can survive the Sunday's without anything major blowing up in his face, then we'll be able to say he's scored a hit. Probably.
But he is playing quite a dangerous game with this stuff, IMO and it's certainly not without risk to him or Labour.
I agree with Mike, by the way, that despite some pressure on Ed this isn't fertile ground for the Tories.
Indeed. You could discern that a bit in QT last night.
I really can't be bothered to even listen to them. And as a political nerd it just shows how piss-poor their messaging is. I'm not even worried enough to read their rubbish. At least with Mandy, I felt the danger - EdM is a numpty.
Mr. Smithson, that's the logic of praising Didius Julianus for becoming emperor. Yes, he did it, and bought supreme power, bully for him. But what good did it do the empire? Or him, for that matter? His time in power was so brief as to make Caesar's dictatorial reign like the life of Methuselah.
Miliband's talents seem limited to harming British industry, occupational fratricide and smear.
In the very unlikely event that more IHT has to be paid from the varied estate then you have to let HMRC know.
https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 25 mins25 minutes ago
24 hrs of tax avoidance story on social media: EdM bigger loser than Cam, according to TheySay http://ge2015.theysay.io/1-day.php
And who will be paying for the jobs?
A spokesman for Mr Miliband said that “no one connected to Ed Miliband” used the phrase ‘Milly Dowler moment’.
However, the spokesman did not deny that Milly Dowler was mentioned while discussing the issue of Lord Fink.
It is understood that although Mr Baldwin did not use the exact phrase "Milly Dowler moment", Mr Robinson's original blog gives the "correct flavour of the conversation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11409156/Miliband-criticised-over-aides-comparison-of-tax-row-to-Milly-Dowler-case.html
It is classically do as I say not as I do super hypocritcal (Ed of course for example could have ended the stamp duty issue at any time during his tenure in govt...).
And of course super-effective.
The question is not that it is effective but it is whether the constituency who adores this line of attack is stable or sizeable enough to actually swing the election for Lab.
The economy still trumps all attack lines of this sort and on the long, cold, lonely walk to the polling station the thought going through peoples' minds (IMO) regarding the two parties will still be:
Cons: Nasty...effective...support their friends...b&stards...competent.
Lab: Partly to blame..no money left..huge deficit..incompetent...might repeat if allowed to.
This is not true of the supporters of any other party. Labour has the drop on not minding abject moral incompetence in its representatives. Conservative voters booted out Neil Hamilton; Libs booted out Jeremy Thorpe; and they very nearly booted out the successor in perjurer Huhne's seat.
These outcomes are simply inconceivable in a Labour constituency. There is literally no level of personal turpitude a Labour MP or councillor could sink to that will make his constituents vote him out; see Rotherham.
This is not to say every Labour seat is a safe seat, but to say that no Labour politician need fear losing his seat simply because he's a disgusting scumbag. He has a hard core of supporters who simply do not mind.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/565840539883696128
LAB 34
CON 31
LD 9
UKIP 14
GRN 6
Similarly, in certain circs, you can amend a will.
Not sure what your point is, other than the rules on ISAs should be relaxed?
And the reason is that socialism is morally superior; so as long as you're fighting against the Evil Tories (tm), you can be forgiven your own failures.
Does this indicate, despite some appearances to the contrary, that Ed is finally making his mark and giving himself some definition? Maybe.
When are we expecting this to occur?
If labour are doing better with him, the tories really are in trouble.
A straight yes or no will suffice.
That said, lab maj odds do look rather tempting
Neither do I, but Campbell pointed out that she was the Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury so perhaps she ought to have a clue.
I suppose he had a point.
Edit: I gather she's called Cathy Jamieson but should she be out on her own?
Other parties do lose and have lost otherwise safe seats because their supporters won't stand for even a strong suspicion of any of it: Hamilton, Thorpe; Huhne too, arguably.
What is unique about Labour is that we have had many, many examples of sleaze, corruption, tolerance of criminality, and actual criminality by its representatives; yet it is hard to think of one example anywhere of this harming the core Labour vote. They simply do not mind and only regard as an issue if it's another party. Perhaps it is a hangover from the party's closed-shop demarcation line roots? "Oi, you can't fiddle your expenses, you're not Labour!"
Fieldwork for the Populus poll was Wed & Thurs.
I'm always very doubtful about ascribing specific events so quickly to poll changes. It might be but we need to wait.
"Media foes of Ed M generating row re Milly Dowler. I reported aides saw this as moment to stand up to powerful like when that story broke"
I'm not criticising the Milibands for executing the DoV - it's perfectly sensible and we've clearly permitted it to prevent people losing out through poor planning. Though it would be worth someone asking Ed if he thought his dad really wanted his will amended.
Before that comes the public finances data for January. I have read that this is a huge month because it's the month when Britain's small businesses and self employed return.
Plus, Osborne may have a war chest because gilt coupons are going through the floor
There is nothing, literally nothing, that will persuade a certain type of
Labour isn't losing to the SNP because Labour's Scotch MPs are tax dodgers, or expense fiddlers, or kiddy fiddlers, or perjurers, or war criminals, or any other kind of offender.
Other parties do lose and have lost otherwise safe seats because their supporters won't stand for even a strong suspicion of any of it: Hamilton, Thorpe; Huhne too, arguably.
What is unique about Labour is that we have had many, many examples of sleaze, corruption, tolerance of criminality, and actual criminality by its representatives; yet it is hard to think of one example anywhere of this harming the core Labour vote. They simply do not mind and only regard as an issue if it's another party. Perhaps it is a hangover from the party's closed-shop demarcation line roots? "Oi, you can't fiddle your expenses, you're not Labour!"
It just comes down to wickedness. Labour supporters are low-life scum. That said, I could have sworn that a fair few Labour MPs implicated in the expenses scandal lost their seats at the last election. I am not sure which perjurers, war criminals and kiddy fiddlers retained them.
"aides saw this as moment to stand up to powerful like when that story broke"
Which story?
Did the aide's not say which story they thought it was like?
Did they invite Nick Robinson to guess?
They didn't use the phrase "Milly Dowler moment". We now appear to be suggesting the phrase "moment like Milly Dowler" is different?
I have long since learned to ignore the Ashcroft weekly, whatever it shows. It seems to bounce about all over the shop.
Not knowing things is not necessarily a bar to your job prospects. In fact, some cynics might say that it is a real positive with some companies.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/hsbc-files-rona-fairhead-declines-answer-queries-activities-swiss-subsidiary
From the tables, it appears that Con have a healthy lead in the +55 and ABC1 demographics...
55-64: 34% (con) 30% (lab)
65+: 46% (con) 20% (lab)
AB: 37% (con) 32% (lab)
C1: 37% (con) 30% (lab)
On the Milly angle - either Tom Baldwin has come out with a comparison so vile he should probably be sacked on the spot or Nick Robinson has made a genuine error of reporting judgement. One of the two.