Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Next Tory Leader betting

124»

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

    2000 fat people on benefits.. probably the max 26000 a yr that's 52 million smackers, no wonder lefties just don't understand how much it all costs...
    And how many obese tax avoiders are there ? I expect costing the country rather more than 52 million smackers
    That's an absolutely wrong-headed argument.

    The government should address both issues at the same time
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @nigel4england
    At a very simple level (for others not as bright), if you own a business and wish a really powerful computer to watch porn in your home, instead of buying it as usual, you claim it as a necessary business expense, and claim back the VAT.
    If you get creative, it is surprising what you can claim, as long as you don't overdo it.
    (professional tax advice is usually recommended)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Does anyone think if the polls stay the same , Cameron`s team might be more interested in the leader debates.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @nigel4england
    At a very simple level (for others not as bright), if you own a business and wish a really powerful computer to watch porn in your home, instead of buying it as usual, you claim it as a necessary business expense, and claim back the VAT.
    If you get creative, it is surprising what you can claim, as long as you don't overdo it.
    (professional tax advice is usually recommended)

    Well thanks for that bog standard stuff, I thought you had some clever ruse going on.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @CarlottaVance
    Does being a donor to a political party give you a right to dictate a policy then Carlotta?

    Len McCluskey seems to think so.
    Not even Len's money, he just "manages" it for Unite. But he does get influence in the Labour NEC and policy making work of Labour.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @nigel4england
    Is it tax avoidance or evasion though?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Bill Clinton’s libido threatens to derail Hillary — again

    http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Smarmeron said:

    @Alanbrooke
    VAT is avoidable on certain things as long as you are reasonably careful, and not on PAYE.


    Please, do explain.

    My wife buys her shoes in Spain and not when we are in the UK.

    BURN THE VAT AVOIDERESS

    And from the price-tags I think we are keeping a trainee nurse out of a job. Possibly two.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @TCPoliticalBetting
    And if David Cameron's brother donates a few million quid to the Tories, he expects nothing in return, because he is a Tory, and above criticism?
  • Danny565 said:

    Bill Clinton’s libido threatens to derail Hillary — again

    http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/

    That story really does have the potential to go all over the place...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    edited February 2015
    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency. Sadly I was out when they called.

    They are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train those within the lifetime of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 new ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited February 2015

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency.

    Bettye are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train within the love time of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 house ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    In the case of home care workers, most home care is private provision, and I haven't heard how they will force them to hire more people.

    200,000 should be achievable, but it requires some big levers on the planning side of things.
  • Smarmeron said:

    @nigel4england
    Is it tax avoidance or evasion though?

    I neither know nor care, I'm not VAT registered
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Smarmeron said:

    @TCPoliticalBetting
    And if David Cameron's brother donates a few million quid to the Tories, he expects nothing in return, because he is a Tory, and above criticism?

    Nothing? Why do you think a donation gets you "nothing"?

    I'd donate in a positive effort to help keep people like you away from power.
    That's a benefit for all of us in itself.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency.

    Bettye are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train within the love time of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 house ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    In the case of home care workers, most home care is private provision, and I haven't heard how they will force them to hire more people.
    More contracts?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited February 2015

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency.

    Bettye are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train within the love time of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 house ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    In the case of home care workers, most home care is private provision, and I haven't heard how they will force them to hire more people.
    More contracts?
    That isn't how it works. The only way I can see they can get that result is some how change the law which means more minutes of contact per person...but then that is costs up for everything, both those getting state paid provision and paying it out of their own pocket.

    So you could be making some not very rich people a lot poorer. Also, not all people need more contact.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @nigel4england
    In the case I used, it is evasion, but is seen as a legitimate perk, because no one is going to check unless it is really obvious.
    You would be breaking the law, but unlikely to be prosecuted.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole
    Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".

    The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

    Still riddled with inaccuracies.

    Miliband did not "agree to rewrite his father's will". He had no say in the matter, not being a beneficiary. His mother did, no doubt acting on professional advice.

    The DOV would not "ultimately reduce IHT". It might, under some limited circumstances, which did not in fact eventuate.

    And the whole premise of the article is disingenuous, implying that no Labour politician could ever favour a tightening of the tax regime if he (or another Labour politician) had ever benefited from an aspect of the tax regime, without facing a charge of hypocrisy...
  • Rolling the pitch in the New Statesman:

    Labour and the SNP aren't as far apart on austerity as assumed

    As a new study by the Resolution Foundation shows, the difference between the two parties could be "relatively modest".


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/labour-and-snp-arent-far-apart-austerity-assumed
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency.

    Bettye are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train within the love time of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 house ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    In the case of home care workers, most home care is private provision, and I haven't heard how they will force them to hire more people.
    More contracts?
    That isn't how it works. The only way I can see they can get that result is some how change the law which means more minutes of contact per person...but then that is costs up for everything, both those getting state paid provision and paying it out of their own pocket.

    So you could be making some not very rich people a lot poorer. Also, not all people need more contact.
    Quite. Sadly, for someone unashamedly on the left, a lot of it doesn't seem thought through at all.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited February 2015
    @GeoffM
    And if a union donates money to keep the likes of you away from power in order to protect its members (shareholders if you like) that is wrong?
    One law for the......?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited February 2015

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency.

    Bettye are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train within the love time of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 house ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    In the case of home care workers, most home care is private provision, and I haven't heard how they will force them to hire more people.
    More contracts?
    That isn't how it works. The only way I can see they can get that result is some how change the law which means more minutes of contact per person...but then that is costs up for everything, both those getting state paid provision and paying it out of their own pocket.

    So you could be making some not very rich people a lot poorer. Also, not all people need more contact.
    Quite. Sadly, for someone unashamedly on the left, a lot of it doesn't seem thought through at all.
    Home care is a total mess, but Ed's just "I will hire 5000 more people" show he doesn't understand the system as it is now. Under Labour and continued under the Tories, council's are less and less involved in the front line provision of home care.

    I put some stats up here at the time, but basically these days the vast majority of councils contract out the service, and I would suggest those contracts already have in them how long, how much, etc. So unlike say the NHS, he can't just wave his hand in Whitehall and magically 5000 people get employed by councils across the country to provide this service.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency. Sadly I was out when they called.

    They are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train those within the lifetime of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 new ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    Labour tractor statistics worthy of the Kremlin.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?

    I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.

    All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.

    For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
    Groan.....

    The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.

    The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.

    In contrast, a lot of Tories seemed to think that the Lib Dems had signed up to Tory policies. And tried to treat the Coalition Goverment as though it was a Tory one. Which is very definitely has not been. A Tory one would have been very different.

    Consequently, they got a bit peeved when Lib Dems criticised their Tory colleagues for implementing Tory policies rather than agreed coalition policies. Take the original Lansley proposals for the NHS for example.

    It is the disloyal Tory politiciams who should be criticised for unsettling the Coalition. And the Lib Dems who should be given their fair share of credit for the successful outcomes of agreed policy.

    Good to see you getting in practice at groaning. You are going to be doing plenty of that in May.

    Mostly because of the attitude set out in your post.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    Mr Urquhart, social care has been mismanaged and indeed underfunded for many years.I'm not sure whether divorcing it completely from the NHS is a good or bad policy; but there has to be a simple cross-over for patients/users. And at the moment there isn't.
  • RodCrosby said:

    Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole
    Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".

    The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

    Still riddled with inaccuracies.

    Miliband did not "agree to rewrite his father's will". He had no say in the matter, not being a beneficiary. His mother did, no doubt acting on professional advice.

    The DOV would not "ultimately reduce IHT". It might, under some limited circumstances, which did not in fact eventuate.

    And the whole premise of the article is disingenuous, implying that no Labour politician could ever favour a tightening of the tax regime if he (or another Labour politician) had ever benefited from an aspect of the tax regime, without facing a charge of hypocrisy...
    If you're going to criticise others for inaccuracies, you may prefer to be accurate yourself.

    The article does not say Miliband 'agree[d] to rewrite his father's will', and surely the claim that it "The deed of variation would ultimately reduce the tax on Mrs Miliband’s estate" would be true if she occupied the house until her death and took no other steps to avoid legitimately plan her tax affairs?
  • RodCrosby said:

    Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole
    Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".

    The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

    Still riddled with inaccuracies.

    Miliband did not "agree to rewrite his father's will". He had no say in the matter, not being a beneficiary. His mother did, no doubt acting on professional advice.

    The DOV would not "ultimately reduce IHT". It might, under some limited circumstances, which did not in fact eventuate.

    And the whole premise of the article is disingenuous, implying that no Labour politician could ever favour a tightening of the tax regime if he (or another Labour politician) had ever benefited from an aspect of the tax regime, without facing a charge of hypocrisy...
    All perfectly correct, Rod, but you ignore the true purpose of the article, which is to cheer up people who have had a very bad week.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Is the current Labour campaign on tax and dodgy donors etc. negative campaigning?

    I thought Labour was going to have a positive campaign rather than go negative?

    No, it's not negative it's a bold and fearless stand against the enemy.

    Or something like that.

    Alternatively, it might hypocrisy, but whom am I to criticise?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Charles
    "Alternatively, it might hypocrisy, but whom am I to criticise? "
    A very wise statement you made there Charles.
    ;-)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Yorkcity said:


    Only the little people pay taxes.

    And rightly so to fund your sleeping whilst at work.

    I'm at work for a minimum 24 hour stretch, usually 48-72 hours, but do pull 96 and 120 hours stints. You want me awake for 5 days solid at a time?
    Out of interest, why do they structure it like that? I'd have thought that a standard shift pattern would make more sense, surely? Obviously there'd need to be some flex because you're not going to clock off in the middle of fighting a fire, but it does appear that you have a fairly odd system in place.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Does anyone think if the polls stay the same , Cameron`s team might be more interested in the leader debates.

    It would be a delicious irony if they were denied access to a 'last throw of the dice' by their own ploys to avoid what they expected to be a threat rather than an opportunity.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    Ed Balls refuses to back Ed Miliband tax loophole
    Ed Balls has said that he might close a tax loophole used by Ed Miliband, after insisting he would crack down on "aggressive tax avoidance".

    The Shadow Chancellor failed to back the Labour leader’s over his family’s use of a “deed of variation”, which changed his father’s will posthumously to minimise the amount paid in inheritance tax.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11413940/Ed-Balls-refuses-to-back-Ed-Miliband-tax-loophole.html

    Still riddled with inaccuracies.

    Miliband did not "agree to rewrite his father's will". He had no say in the matter, not being a beneficiary. His mother did, no doubt acting on professional advice.

    The DOV would not "ultimately reduce IHT". It might, under some limited circumstances, which did not in fact eventuate.

    And the whole premise of the article is disingenuous, implying that no Labour politician could ever favour a tightening of the tax regime if he (or another Labour politician) had ever benefited from an aspect of the tax regime, without facing a charge of hypocrisy...
    If you're going to criticise others for inaccuracies, you may prefer to be accurate yourself.

    The article does not say Miliband 'agree[d] to rewrite his father's will', and surely the claim that it "The deed of variation would ultimately reduce the tax on Mrs Miliband’s estate" would be true if she occupied the house until her death and took no other steps to avoid legitimately plan her tax affairs?
    "However, along with his mother and his brother – the former Labour MP David Miliband – Mr Miliband agreed to rewrite his father’s will using a deed of variation. "

    And, on the second point, you agree then it would be fairer to say "might ultimately reduce" rather than "would ultimately reduce"?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue it does give the image of the school bullies picking on the fatboy.

    If this was a serious initiative it would have got underway a long time ago. It's an effort to demonise a tiny section of society in order to get a few votes back from UKIP.

    So when EdM suddenly decides that tax efficiency is a bad thing, despite doing nothing baout it during the 13 years he was at, or near, the levers of power, he's not "demonising a tiny section of society in order to get a few votes back from the Greens"?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?

    I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.

    All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.

    For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
    Groan.....

    The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.

    The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.

    Ah.

    That would be why they supported the boundary changes. I must have slept through that demonstration of good faith by the LibDems.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency. Sadly I was out when they called.

    They are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train those within the lifetime of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 new ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    Someone noticed my mistyping a few days ago, and we had a quiet laugh.

    Now I'll point out yours. Yes, we could all do with 200K hoses for our gardens, and even more, but what happens if there is a drought and hoses are banned from watering gardens. Tsk, tsk.
  • Rachael Maskell won Labour selection in York Central
    She sits on Labour NEC and she's Head of Health at Unite.
    She's "local" in the sense she lives in York...since the week before the MP announced retirement or something like that
  • Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:


    Only the little people pay taxes.

    And rightly so to fund your sleeping whilst at work.

    I'm at work for a minimum 24 hour stretch, usually 48-72 hours, but do pull 96 and 120 hours stints. You want me awake for 5 days solid at a time?
    Out of interest, why do they structure it like that? I'd have thought that a standard shift pattern would make more sense, surely? Obviously there'd need to be some flex because you're not going to clock off in the middle of fighting a fire, but it does appear that you have a fairly odd system in place.
    So they can do other jobs to make their money up!

    I have two good mates that have recently retired from the LFB
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    edited February 2015
    MikeK said:

    Just had a Labour leaflet through the door. Good to think they haven't given up on this constituency. Sadly I was out when they called.

    They are promising 8000 more doctors (and other health & care staff). Admittedly it doesn't give a timescale but except in the case of home care workers there won't be time to recruit and train those within the lifetime of the next Parliament.
    We're also promised a freeze on gas & electricity prices until 2017, but since they're presently stable or falling.......

    The three I do find worthy of support are 200,000 new ..... I presume that's nationally .... hoses by 2020, more childcare and reforming the banks.

    Someone noticed my mistyping a few days ago, and we had a quiet laugh.

    Now I'll point out yours. Yes, we could all do with 200K hoses for our gardens, and even more, but what happens if there is a drought and hoses are banned from watering gardens. Tsk, tsk.
    Touché!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    OT.
    Hammond has all the charisma of a damp rag on a rainy day. The only person to help reunite the right is Boris, for all his faults. However, even he won't make many in UKIP return to the old tory fold.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @nigel4england
    "So they can do other jobs to make their money up!"

    It is the same as all our "top" people with multiple directorships then?
    It must be perfectly acceptable to you in that case?
  • Charles said:

    Yorkcity said:


    Only the little people pay taxes.

    And rightly so to fund your sleeping whilst at work.

    I'm at work for a minimum 24 hour stretch, usually 48-72 hours, but do pull 96 and 120 hours stints. You want me awake for 5 days solid at a time?
    Out of interest, why do they structure it like that? I'd have thought that a standard shift pattern would make more sense, surely? Obviously there'd need to be some flex because you're not going to clock off in the middle of fighting a fire, but it does appear that you have a fairly odd system in place.
    Because it cuts the number of staff required by 40%, saving a fortune in wages and pension contributions. There is an initial capital outlay to upgrade station facilities, but that gets classed as investment. The system is called Day Crewing Plus, and a lot of brigades are bringing it in.
    From 08:00 to 20:00, it's a normal workday, but outside those times, you're on duty, but not actively doing any work related stuff-no paperwork, no computer work, no equipment testing, lectures or training. You can retire to your room, and watch TV, or cook in the communal kitchen. Attending incidents during downtime adds the accrued hours onto the end of your downtime. You can't leave the station, but family can visit and even stay the night, but, to be honest, once the novelty has worn off, not many do.
    It's paid at a bonus of 27%, to account for the longer hours.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    Charles said:

    Having discovered that an eye-watering 1,780 people across the United Kingdom are claiming benefits for obesity-related reasons I am more convinced than ever that recently announced Tory plans to crackdown on the feral fat are in no way related to the fact we have a general election approaching and the Tories need to get some votes back from UKIP. This is high-minded stuff and will save the taxpayer literally thousands of pounds a year.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

    LOL

    you think the rest of them are going to come out with sensible costed policies ?

    There is no money.

    This election is an austerity auction with parties bidding for votes on "we will hurt you least".

    Completely agree. Do you remember we are all in it together?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945341/The-3m-bash-Dave-doesn-t-want-know-ANDREW-PIERCE-tonight-s-Tory-Black-White-Ball.html

    It's a party, get over it.

    Hundreds of charities throw parties to raise money every year. This one was just a bit more expensive and thrown by a political party.

    I am delighted it took place. It shone a very bright light on who funds the Conservative party. Long may it continue.

    Meanwhile Labours union backers cook up backroom deals, behind closed doors.


  • "Shadow chancellor Ed Balls says the Treasury "turned a blind eye" on what was happening at HSBC"

    Well he should know...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Smarmeron said:

    @GeoffM
    And if a union donates money to keep the likes of you away from power in order to protect its members (shareholders if you like) that is wrong?
    One law for the......?

    I am not a union. I am an individual and you originally used the example of an individual too.

    You are moving the goalposts faster than in the tired 'joke' that the Computer bloke insists on tediously repeating every evening at about 10pm.

    Nevertheless for clarity: I believe that any individual should be free to give away their own money either openly or anonymously to whoever they wish and whenever they wish without the interference of the State. And that principle shouldn't be artificially ringfenced to discriminate against political parties.
    Companies and unions, on the other hand, must be open and accountable to their shareholders and members for their actions, both financial and otherwise.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Charles said:

    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    That will be the same Boy George that has done a superb job of getting the country back into growth without causing mass unemployment?

    I thought it was the Lib Dems who did that.

    All Osborn was interested in was cutting taxes on the super-rich.

    For what you say to be true, that would require the LibDems to be in Coalition Govt. Now that can't be right, or we would have heard them claiming credit for stuff, rather than criticising everything the Govt has done for the past five years.....
    Groan.....

    The Lib Dems signed up for a Coalition Government, on the basis of a coalition agreement over policy.

    The Lib Dems in government have stuck to that agreement - everybody comments on their reliability in government.

    Ah.

    That would be why they supported the boundary changes. I must have slept through that demonstration of good faith by the LibDems.
    It's unfortunate for the Lib Dems that the only people on the centre/centre-right who may well notice that they have broadly been a good egg and decent partner in Government are the very same people who may spot their underhandedness in the boundary changes. Yet if those boundary changed had gone through they could be facing almost total wipeout rather than the expected 27 odd seats or so.

    Perhaps, in the same way the referendum could only end up with the SNP winning, the Lib Dems always were on a hiding to nothing.
  • New Thread
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Anyone know whether Graham Evans has a good chance of keeping his Vale Royal seat? I heard this lunchtime that he was a really good bloke and very well liked in his constituency. He also gives of his time to local charities tirelessly.
  • *Unashamed Advert*

    Any PBers in the North London area who are free on the evening of Wednesday 25th Feb might like to come along to this special screening of the film 'Cartoonists - Footsoldiers of Democracy', followed by a discussion with special guests Martha Richler (Marf of this parish), David Aaronovitch (The Times) and Jodie Ginsberg (Index of Censorship).

    http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=312cf720117fac1051bd1afe6&id=1819779b0b&e=3a59b60940

    Tickets are £10 (25% discount for UKJF members, or 50% to anybody joining me as part of Marf's armed guard.)

    I understand bullet-proof vests will be available to members of the audience, on request. Catering by Mossad.

    Could be a lively nite.

    PtP
  • murali_s said:

    Waiting for the latest ELBOW Sunil? Increased Labour lead I'm guessing after the week as Ed has had. Admittedly, the tax issue was an open goal but Ed has slotted it in. Of course the rabid right-wing nutjobs on here will defend those sleazy dodgy individuals to the last but his attacks resonated well within the country....

    I posted it this morning, didn't you see?
This discussion has been closed.