“We really need,” a senior Lib Dem recently told The Evening Standard, “45 MPs to go into another coalition.” More MPs than polling suggests they will return. “At some point it just becomes a matter of numbers. You have to fill Cabinet positions, junior ministerial positions, select committee chairs — things like that – while also having places for MPs sulking or who don’t want to sit in government.”
Since it's nailed on the Lib Dems aren't getting anywhere near 45 MPs (33 is about the most they can hope for imo), I doubt they're going anywhere near another coalition.
This Labour List article does seem extraordinarily bullish for the Lib Dems.... I'd advise anyone who is basing their book around the Lib Dems getting 45 MPs to take a rain check.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Just ask bobachildallowance........finger on the pulse about how there is 'nothing to see' in Scottish Labour.....
Tories telling each other how awful Labour is makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
Labour telling each other how 'stories don't matter' when they continue to feature in the news and drive coverage off Labour's wished for topic makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Yes, there is an Alan Johnson sized gap there.
Hah Those Alan Johnson bets I've got might come back from the dead yet. I viewed them as some sort of Ed Miliband insurance policy when I placed them, I suppose although they look very much like being losers... bit like betting on Mad Moose... they could yet come back from the dead.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Yes, there is an Alan Johnson sized gap there.
33/1 with Bet365 as next Labour leader
Might as well take 50/1 on Next PM. He's not interested in leading the Labour Party.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Its clever politics by labour as long as they do not get caught up in the questions like they did this morning
It was never clever politics - 'back to basics' never is, as John Major found out.
This weekend's sh*tstorm over Labour donor tax practices was entirely predictable - if Ed was a smarter politician he'd see beyond the sugar rush of 'sticking one to the Tories over tax evasion' (didn't work, voters think both current & previous Labour government are to blame for the HSBC mess - and those who pick one or the other plump 3:2 for Labour) and think through the consequences - but he didn't - now he's got 'deed of variation' and the fact that he lives in a multi million pound house plastered all over the news.....oh, and headlines like this:
Balls twice refuses to answer if Ed acted morally over tax as Labour faces allegations about donors and close advisers' tax affairs
Interesting how little traction what you describe as a sh*tstorm actually got. Telling.
Interesting that voters blame Labor more than the current government (when picking one or the other) for the Swiss HSBC mess. Telling.
The Times leads with Balls painting himself into a corner by saying everyone should get a receipt for every little cash in hand job - despite ridiculing the idea previously. It shows that Labour are in reality very anti self employed. Balls rather unconvincingly claims he does so, but amusingly in the comments people point out that if he does its only to claim it back from the taxpayer. Its not illegal to pay in cash or run a business in cash, and the real purpose of the customer getting a receipt is to protect himself from being accused of not paying in the first place, it has little relevance to the provider. And of course there may well be an expense the customer can indeed offset against tax for himself, thereby receipts can in fact quite fairly cost the taxpayer.
BTW - the article also points to a book by Crudas suggesting that a Labour govt should stop trading with private companies and “forge co-operative ties with ethical enterprise — such as co-operatives, mutuals and social businesses”. Labour is anti business. If you want to keep this clueless idiot out of the treasury then the only option is to vote conservative.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Yes, there is an Alan Johnson sized gap there.
33/1 with Bet365 as next Labour leader
Might as well take 50/1 on Next PM. He's not interested in leading the Labour Party.
A good point, surely he must be Labour leader in order to be PM though... ?
(50-1 next PM better value certainly though I agree)
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
He is the guy who sets up 'ukipeastlondon' or 'ukipcornwall' twitter accounts, retweets a few Ukip politicians, then starts tweeting outrageous racist stuff... Many people have been duped and claimed it as real
He has also done an anti Semitic 'labour' accounts
Just ask bobachildallowance........finger on the pulse about how there is 'nothing to see' in Scottish Labour.....
Tories telling each other how awful Labour is makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
Labour telling each other how 'stories don't matter' when they continue to feature in the news and drive coverage off Labour's wished for topic makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
If tax avoidance is the dominant theme of the next couple of months Labour will be delighted. The story matters a lot, because it is a good one for Labour. What it is very unlikely to do is play well for the Tories. We shall see.
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Yes, there is an Alan Johnson sized gap there.
33/1 with Bet365 as next Labour leader
Might as well take 50/1 on Next PM. He's not interested in leading the Labour Party.
A good point, surely he must be Labour leader in order to be PM though... ?
(50-1 next PM better value certainly though I agree)
To be fair it's not next PM but PM after GE.
Despite the logic of antifrank's "logic gap", I'm seriously unconvinced by the idea that we end up with anyone other than DC or EM. It would be seen as a backroom stitch-up by the parties involved [I can't believe there'd be a contested Labour leadership election either, it would have to be a coronation].
To pre-empt: Brown & Major were 3 years into Parliaments where their parties enjoyed a majority.
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Going to make any damn difference to how people vote
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Testament is that Labour have determined that UC should not be repealed.
There's nothing to repeal. It's still a couple of pilots and a bunch of future rollout targets. When it's only going to a bloke in Oldham called Dan you can do all the calculations manually.
The issue with it has always been whether anybody can actually implement the bastard thing - are Labour actually committing to doing it? IIRC their line was that they were going to ask the National Audit Office whether it could be salvaged.
PS forehead-slapping moment from that article - tech people will recognize this particular brand of ignorant management fuckwittery:
He also recalls the ''lightbulb’’ moment when, at a chance meeting, ''I learnt that Vocalink, a payment systems company, had already spent four years building a real-time PAYE system that worked. This meant that we had the information technology to make Universal Credit effective.’’
"Seriously? They would make the less than universally popular Miliband PM if he has fewer MPs and votes? I’m doubtful. Equally, Cameron would not stay PM if he has fewer MPs and votes. Most MPs trumps most votes. But being behind on both MPs and votes is unsalvageable."
There's a logic gap there. Being behind on both MPs and votes might be unsalvageable for Ed Miliband, but not for Labour.
Yes, there is an Alan Johnson sized gap there.
33/1 with Bet365 as next Labour leader
Might as well take 50/1 on Next PM. He's not interested in leading the Labour Party.
A good point, surely he must be Labour leader in order to be PM though... ?
(50-1 next PM better value certainly though I agree)
To be fair it's not next PM but PM after GE.
Despite the logic of antifrank's "logic gap", I'm seriously unconvinced by the idea that we end up with anyone other than DC or EM. It would be seen as a backroom stitch-up by the parties involved [I can't believe there'd be a contested Labour leadership election either, it would have to be a coronation].
To pre-empt: Brown & Major were 3 years into Parliaments where their parties enjoyed a majority.
Well I think it just makes sense to have some Lab minority, some Con minority, probably a green on Con most seats and some green on Ed Mili next PM. Ed Mili next PM is highly correlated to Labour minority but you shouldn't have completely one or t'other as your sole book...
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Going to make any damn difference to how people vote
Tory: 0 Labour: 0
That's good enough for Labour right now.
The Tube strikes are the forthcoming potential Labour weakness I think.
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Yep, the Tories need to change the conversation.
Hasn't it moved on from 'donors' to 'tax avoidance' - see Balls & Umuna on 'receipts for everything'.
Is that where Labour want the story - anti-small business?
He is the guy who sets up 'ukipeastlondon' or 'ukipcornwall' twitter accounts, retweets a few Ukip politicians, then starts tweeting outrageous racist stuff... Many people have been duped and claimed it as real
He has also done an anti Semitic 'labour' accounts
But seems to realise that his natural home is the Conservative party.
If he's not careful they will do a Burley on him, and set up an internal inquiry to confirm that his behaviour is not racist.
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
Testament is that Labour have determined that UC should not be repealed.
There's nothing to repeal. It's still a couple of pilots and a bunch of future rollout targets. When it's only going to a bloke in Oldham called Dan you can do all the calculations manually.
1 in 3 jobcentres will be using UC by the election - that is more than "a couple of pilots"
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Yep, the Tories need to change the conversation.
Subtract the 'clean' and it's even worse
Tory 35 Labour 16
The weekend polling suggested that people think that Labour are only *slightly* better than the Conservatives when it comes to tax avoidance.
Nevertheless, every day in the long campaign that is not dominated by the economy is a day wasted for the Conservatives. Even if people conclude that the two main parties are about as sleazy as each other, that hardly helps the Conservatives. It helps UKIP and the Greens.
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
If you have a qoute for £xxx.xx and pay in cash £xxx.xx - 20% how will that change your position?
The least surprising news of the day (other than @Pulpstar being blocked by Dan Hodges) comes from the Times Red Box poll.
Amazingly the PB Tories were wrong in their analysis!!
Without previous comparatives the poll is entirely uninteresting, surely. How different would the figures be , do you think, if the same question was asked two weeks ago? My guess - hardly at all.
The least surprising news of the day (other than @Pulpstar being blocked by Dan Hodges) comes from the Times Red Box poll.
Amazingly the PB Tories were wrong in their analysis!!
Frankly would have expected worse. 60% of UK voters are just NEVER going to vote Tory. I expected most of them to condemn the blues... It's priced in to the prejudice.
The least surprising news of the day (other than @Pulpstar being blocked by Dan Hodges) comes from the Times Red Box poll.
Amazingly the PB Tories were wrong in their analysis!!
Without previous comparatives the poll is entirely uninteresting, surely. How different would the figures be , do you think, if the same question was asked two weeks ago? My guess - hardly at all.
The least surprising news of the day (other than @Pulpstar being blocked by Dan Hodges) comes from the Times Red Box poll.
Amazingly the PB Tories were wrong in their analysis!!
Without previous comparatives the poll is entirely uninteresting, surely. How different would the figures be , do you think, if the same question was asked two weeks ago? My guess - hardly at all.
Whatever the previous poll was, if there was one, the Tories just need to change the agenda rather than stoking the fire
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Yep, the Tories need to change the conversation.
Subtract the 'clean' and it's even worse
Tory 35 Labour 16
The weekend polling suggested that people think that Labour are only *slightly* better than the Conservatives when it comes to tax avoidance.
Nevertheless, every day in the long campaign that is not dominated by the economy is a day wasted for the Conservatives. Even if people conclude that the two main parties are about as sleazy as each other, that hardly helps the Conservatives. It helps UKIP and the Greens.
The Tories need the end of the campaign to be dominated by the economy, not the start.
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
If I open a shop selling gardening implements and a nice well dressed man in a suit comes in a buys an axe and then uses it to kill his wife, am I aiding an abetting him in that act, since I have assisted him by selling him the axe. Is it now the case that one should assume the worst of ones business contacts, that I should assume my customer might use my products for murder, and my window cleaner might fail to declare the money I have given him. Why would it be my responsibility what another adult chooses to do with his financial affairs, without my input or encouragement ?
I got blocked by a Guardian journalist I followed. I have no idea why.
Dunno, I try to say it and bet it as I see it. If Labour were reduced to 0 seats at the GE I'd make a mint. Obviously that won't happen but Labour getting all the seats in the UK would be a really bad night for me on May 7th too.
YouGov (@YouGov) 16/02/2015 10:59 Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
Voters don't think much of either - funding is 'clean & acceptable':
Lab: 17 Con: 12
Dodgy
Tory 47 Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Yep, the Tories need to change the conversation.
Subtract the 'clean' and it's even worse
Tory 35 Labour 16
Nevertheless, every day in the long campaign that is not dominated by the economy is a day wasted for the Conservatives.
Ed's launching Labour's 'Economic plan' today. Which includes 'the most competitive race of corporation tax in the G7'......I expect Uncle Len will be thrilled......
What are the chances questions will be about Labour's dodgy donors?
But yes, the real beneficiaries are UKIP & the Greens - 'sugar rush Ed' just doesn't think things through.....
If you have a qoute for £xxx.xx and pay in cash £xxx.xx - 20% how will that change your position?
The inference that any jury would draw from that is an intent to assist in the defrauding of the Crown of value added tax. If the tradesman evades his liability to value added tax, you would be liable as a secondary party for cheating the public revenue, contrary to common law. In addition, you be liable as a principal for being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of value added tax by the tradesman, contrary to VATA 1994, s. 72(1).
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
Surely cash is legal tender, and anyone can demand that they be paid in cash.
Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.
I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it
I am not sure I agree with that. What injustice are the ISIS thugs decapitating 20 Egyptian Christians protesting against? What injustice remotely justifies the daylight decapitation of a working class, off-duty foot soldier in south London, or the gunning down of cartoonists?
Some young men get a thrill out of violence. They enjoy it, it arouses them, it gives them the attention they crave. They will justify it in whatever way they like - but in the end it comes down to the sheer pleasure of having power over another's life. In a lot of the cases we see now - both in Europe and elsewhere - that is what is driving things
True - but I think it ignores the fact that in virtually all these cases Jews are a target. In this case the target was a Barmitzvah where there would have been children present. The anti-Semitism which is all too prevalent amongst Muslims (not all obviously) - as attested to by some brave Muslim commentators - is surely a factor and something that needs to be addressed. One Danish commentator made this very point on the Sunday.
I do think it a sad commentary that there is relatively little news coverage simply because the matter was resolved relatively quickly and only two innocent people were killed. Have we become so inured to the horror of what is going on? And the disgusting and threatening ideology behind it? We really need to join the dots and fast.
Testament is that Labour have determined that UC should not be repealed.
There's nothing to repeal. It's still a couple of pilots and a bunch of future rollout targets. When it's only going to a bloke in Oldham called Dan you can do all the calculations manually.
The issue with it has always been whether anybody can actually implement the bastard thing - are Labour actually committing to doing it? IIRC their line was that they were going to ask the National Audit Office whether it could be salvaged.
PS forehead-slapping moment from that article - tech people will recognize this particular brand of ignorant management fuckwittery:
He also recalls the ''lightbulb’’ moment when, at a chance meeting, ''I learnt that Vocalink, a payment systems company, had already spent four years building a real-time PAYE system that worked. This meant that we had the information technology to make Universal Credit effective.’’
There is a realtime PAYE system. It's been live for a couple of years now. Rumour has it that there is no interface between HMRC and DWP allowing DWP to see what claimants are earning..
Ed's launching Labour's 'Economic plan' today. Which includes 'the most competitive race of corporation tax in the G7'......I expect Uncle Len will be thrilled......
Not the G20.
He can put it up 5p (they are already pledged to put it up 1p) and still be lowest in G7
If you have a qoute for £xxx.xx and pay in cash £xxx.xx - 20% how will that change your position?
The inference that any jury would draw from that is an intent to assist in the defrauding of the Crown of value added tax. If the tradesman evades his liability to value added tax, you would be liable as a secondary party for cheating the public revenue, contrary to common law. In addition, you be liable as a principal for being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of value added tax by the tradesman, contrary to VATA 1994, s. 72(1).
If the tradesman had said in effect "I'll do it for £120 or £100 cash" one might have reason to suppose he intended to defraud. If on the other hand he said to me "I only take cash and its will cost you £100", I am none the wiser as to his intentions. How HMRC would exactly what was said between us in the privacy of my house house, or even that the transaction took place at all absent a receipt would be interesting to know.
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
Bollocks. I mean, just bollocks, per me, nobody dissenting, no citation needed, unless the tradesman turns up in a van sign-written HUGE CASH DISCOUNTS SO I CAN DEFRAUD THE REVENUE INNIT.
If you want to indulge in another frenzy of jurisprudence you might consider the point that, absent agreement to the contrary or a custom of the trade, nothing except cash is legal tender, and the tradesman is entitled to decline the offer of payment by any other means, and sue you for debt.
I hope they've broken out the METTHs. That would be fabulous.
I think it's going to be a split between marginals and non marginals.
He didn't say it was a "corker" - meh..
The last "corker" wasn't a corker in any way - just a run of the mill MOE poll!
So when it's not even a corker - it's even more "meh".
We need a definition - I suggest any poll that has the gap between Lab/Con moving by +/- 5 or a minor party adding or losing +/- 4 is a "corker". Happy to take soundings
I hope they've broken out the METTHs. That would be fabulous.
I think it's going to be a split between marginals and non marginals.
How do you split them? All Scottish seats are marginals. All LibDem seats are marginals. The 50 smallest Tory majorities, the 30 smallest Labour majorities. Seats held by the Greens or where they have hopes. Seats held by UKIP or where they have hopes.
If you have a qoute for £xxx.xx and pay in cash £xxx.xx - 20% how will that change your position?
The inference that any jury would draw from that is an intent to assist in the defrauding of the Crown of value added tax. If the tradesman evades his liability to value added tax, you would be liable as a secondary party for cheating the public revenue, contrary to common law. In addition, you be liable as a principal for being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of value added tax by the tradesman, contrary to VATA 1994, s. 72(1).
It maybe an inference that the prosecution would invite the jury to draw; whether a jury would is another matter. Juries can be very good at defending HM subjects against the executive. Furthermore, to even get such a case before a jury one would need a bit more in the way of evidence than the fact that the defendant paid a tradesman in cash.
I hope they've broken out the METTHs. That would be fabulous.
I think it's going to be a split between marginals and non marginals.
He didn't say it was a "corker" - meh..
The last "corker" wasn't a corker in any way - just a run of the mill MOE poll!
So when it's not even a corker - it's even more "meh".
We need a definition - I suggest any poll that has the gap between Lab/Con moving by +/- 5 or a minor party adding or losing +/- 4 is a "corker". Happy to take soundings
Otherwise "meh" !
I would go along with that, I would say a "corker" requires a non-MoE move by at least one of the major parties.
If I open a shop selling gardening implements and a nice well dressed man in a suit comes in a buys an axe and then uses it to kill his wife, am I aiding an abetting him in that act, since I have assisted him by selling him the axe. Is it now the case that one should assume the worst of ones business contacts, that I should assume my customer might use my products for murder, and my window cleaner might fail to declare the money I have given him.
It depends on the context. If there is knowledge (as opposed to mere suspicion) of the type of crime to be committed, and something is done, with that knowledge, to assist the commission of the offence, there is liability as an aider and abettor (R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 (CCA)). So if you know a man will commit an offence of violence will an axe, and you nevertheless sell the axe to him, and he commits murder, you will be liable for murder. Likewise, if you know your business contact is engaged in some sort of tax evasion, and do something which facilitates that, and he evades a legal liability to tax, you are liable as well.
Can't see it myself, won't they be losing votes to UKIP and Labour getting a few from Lib Dems. 9-2 looks too tight.
Only had a 3% pro-Lab swing last time, so it's conceivably in play provided the Tories win. I think I'd rather back Con Maj at 6s than this specific seat though.
Just ask bobachildallowance........finger on the pulse about how there is 'nothing to see' in Scottish Labour.....
Tories telling each other how awful Labour is makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
Labour telling each other how 'stories don't matter' when they continue to feature in the news and drive coverage off Labour's wished for topic makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.
If tax avoidance is the dominant theme of the next couple of months Labour will be delighted. The story matters a lot, because it is a good one for Labour. What it is very unlikely to do is play well for the Tories. We shall see.
I agree that it's not a good story for the Tories. I am less sure that it's that good for Labour. My impression is that both parties are up to their neck in getting funds from people/groups who are a world away from real life and who indulge in all sorts of accounting wheezes designed to reduce their tax as much as possible. Both are, more or less, as bad as each other.
What we need to have - but won't get - is a hard limit on how much parties can spend, how much they can receive from any individual or entity (whether that be company, union, charity or whatever) in any one year (no more than £50K - increased every year only by inflation), full transparency of everything provided (money/loans/services in kind etc) and parties will need to learn to live within their means - just like the rest of us. Oh - and no state funding!
If parties cannot raise money within such limits then they die. Too bad. They have no God-given right to exist if they cannot persuade people to support them.
Was amazed when I woke up and noted that the Irish had knocked up the runs.
Hope Nigel For England made a profit on the match, he was certainly correct to make the 8-11 lay when the Windies were sub 100 for 5.
I watched the end of the Windies innings and laid back so that I would get my stake back if Ireland won and a profit if the Windies won, which I was convinced they would.
Good luck to the Irish, nothing lost but perhaps I should have greened out properly.
If I open a shop selling gardening implements and a nice well dressed man in a suit comes in a buys an axe and then uses it to kill his wife, am I aiding an abetting him in that act, since I have assisted him by selling him the axe. Is it now the case that one should assume the worst of ones business contacts, that I should assume my customer might use my products for murder, and my window cleaner might fail to declare the money I have given him.
It depends on the context. If there is knowledge (as opposed to mere suspicion) of the type of crime to be committed, and something is done, with that knowledge, to assist the commission of the offence, there is liability as an aider and abettor (R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 (CCA)). So if you know a man will commit an offence of violence will an axe, and you nevertheless sell the axe to him, and he commits murder, you will be liable for murder. Likewise, if you know your business contact is engaged in some sort of tax evasion, and do something which facilitates that, and he evades a legal liability to tax, you are liable as well.
There was a man of Moose Jaw, Who wanted to meet Bernard Shaw, When asked why, He made no reply, But sharpened an axe and a saw.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe And gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done She gave her father forty-one."
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m5 minutes ago Ed Miliband says Labour "will ensure executive pay is connected to performance" by putting employees on remuneration committees
Not sure how the first part is ensured by the second part, but I am sure it sounds good in the papers.
Of course killing anyone let alone completely innocent people is off the scale. But it is worth looking at the reasons why these people are so angry that they are prepared to self immolate. It's not leaving a bomb somewhere which will detonate in several hours. It's Hari Kari and not even those who fancy 72 virgins would lay down their lives for a bang.
I'm afraid their motivation is injustice and their powerlessness to do anything about it
I am not sure I agree with that. What injustice are the ISIS thugs decapitating 20 Egyptian Christians protesting against? What injustice remotely justifies the daylight decapitation of a working class, off-duty foot soldier in south London, or the gunning down of cartoonists?
Some young men get a thrill out of violence. They enjoy it, it arouses them, it gives them the attention they crave. They will justify it in whatever way they like - but in the end it comes down to the sheer pleasure of having power over another's life. In a lot of the cases we see now - both in Europe and elsewhere - that is what is driving things
True - but I think it ignores the fact that in virtually all these cases Jews are a target. In this case the target was a Barmitzvah where there would have been children present. The anti-Semitism which is all too prevalent amongst Muslims (not all obviously) - as attested to by some brave Muslim commentators - is surely a factor and something that needs to be addressed. One Danish commentator made this very point on the Sunday.
I do think it a sad commentary that there is relatively little news coverage simply because the matter was resolved relatively quickly and only two innocent people were killed. Have we become so inured to the horror of what is going on? And the disgusting and threatening ideology behind it? We really need to join the dots and fast.
--------------------------------
I don't think of myself as an anti bbc person, I quite like it and pay the fee without thinking....
But...
Yesterday, following the Denmark story where they never mentioned muslims or Islam, they covered the story of the cancelled festival in Braunschweig... And didn't mention muslims or Islam either...
No one can say that is balanced reporting, it is actually shit reporting as it leaves out a massive elemmt of both stories
Bollocks. I mean, just bollocks, per me, nobody dissenting, no citation needed, unless the tradesman turns up in a van sign-written HUGE CASH DISCOUNTS SO I CAN DEFRAUD THE REVENUE INNIT.
If you want to indulge in another frenzy of jurisprudence you might consider the point that, absent agreement to the contrary or a custom of the trade, nothing except cash is legal tender, and the tradesman is entitled to decline the offer of payment by any other means, and sue you for debt.
Lomas establishes that an obligation under the civil law to render assistance to a principal will be no defence to a charge of aiding and abetting. No obligation under the civil law will be enforceable, on grounds of public policy, if it involves the commission of a criminal offence. You could not get specific performance against a merchant for the sale of a gun, even if you had paid, if the merchant knew you intended to murder your wife with it.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. W's Mum wisdom would benefit the site greatly.
Mr. P, the proletariat have no right to question the People's Chairman! Their impertinence has earnt them exile from the wise words and stunning rhetoric of Comrade Miliband!
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m5 minutes ago Ed Miliband says Labour "will ensure executive pay is connected to performance" by putting employees on remuneration committees
Not sure how the first part is ensured by the second part, but I am sure it sounds good in the papers.
I don't see any harm in this idea at all. I doubt it will have the effect on executive pay that Labour expects, mind.
Why would you follow Dan Hodges in the first place? You can read his every thought in real time on pb.
Has Dan The Man ever posted here?
King Dan doesn't need to, he has is serfs on here to spout his manure for him.
Your not a fa then?
Iv'e never known anyone to hold such a public grudge about the fact he didn't get the job in the Labour Party he was promised by David Miliband if he became the Labour leader. He still hasn't got over it.
BBC analysis of the Balls/Umuna 'receipt for everything' story that has come about because...of a story with no traction: ... Its a 'Victory for Ed!'
I wonder. If you know (or perhaps wilfully shut your eyes) to the fact that a tradesman prefers cash in hand because it will assist him to make a false statement to an inspector of taxes for the purpose of defrauding the Crown of revenue, and you nevertheless pay in cash, there is a strong argument that you are liable for aiding and abetting the tradesman to cheat the public revenue, if the tradesman goes on to commit the principal offence (c.f.National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 (DC), per Devlin J). Aiding and abetting can occur even if the defendant was under a prima facie legal duty (e.g. the performance of a contract) to render the assistance in question (see R v Lomas (1914) 9 Cr. App. R. 220 (CCA)).
paying cash to a tradesman is perfectly legal, If I was a tradesman I would not take cheques because as a small business owner I have had a couple bounce on me, and paying by BACS is a pain. It is the tradesmans responsibility how he accounts for tax, the responsibilty of this is done on the self assessment - the clue is in the name!
Comments
2.) Majority will be hard won
“We really need,” a senior Lib Dem recently told The Evening Standard, “45 MPs to go into another coalition.” More MPs than polling suggests they will return. “At some point it just becomes a matter of numbers. You have to fill Cabinet positions, junior ministerial positions, select committee chairs — things like that – while also having places for MPs sulking or who don’t want to sit in government.”
Since it's nailed on the Lib Dems aren't getting anywhere near 45 MPs (33 is about the most they can hope for imo), I doubt they're going anywhere near another coalition.
This Labour List article does seem extraordinarily bullish for the Lib Dems.... I'd advise anyone who is basing their book around the Lib Dems getting 45 MPs to take a rain check.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955220/Far-right-Anti-Jewish-rally-organiser-arrested-series-anti-Semitic-tweets-sent-Labour-MP-Luciana-Berger.html
The Mail does not tell us much about Mr Bonehill, but he has form:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Bonehill-Paine
http://dailybalenews.com/
Charming.
'Tories telling each other how awful Labour is makes them feel very good but does not help them to win the election.'
What goes around comes around particularly when Balls gets involved.
16/02/2015 10:59
Today's @timesredbox poll shows voters judge Tories more harshly in the row over party funding y-g.co/1FhaZLK pic.twitter.com/M6C3lBQmCL
47/33 Tory over labour lead on 'dodginess'
Balls rather unconvincingly claims he does so, but amusingly in the comments people point out that if he does its only to claim it back from the taxpayer.
Its not illegal to pay in cash or run a business in cash, and the real purpose of the customer getting a receipt is to protect himself from being accused of not paying in the first place, it has little relevance to the provider. And of course there may well be an expense the customer can indeed offset against tax for himself, thereby receipts can in fact quite fairly cost the taxpayer.
BTW - the article also points to a book by Crudas suggesting that a Labour govt should stop trading with private companies and “forge co-operative ties with ethical enterprise — such as co-operatives, mutuals and social businesses”.
Labour is anti business.
If you want to keep this clueless idiot out of the treasury then the only option is to vote conservative.
(50-1 next PM better value certainly though I agree)
Wife of Aberavon candidate? Try Prime Minister of Denmark
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B99hbrgIgAA-3LI.jpg
He has also done an anti Semitic 'labour' accounts
Despite the logic of antifrank's "logic gap", I'm seriously unconvinced by the idea that we end up with anyone other than DC or EM. It would be seen as a backroom stitch-up by the parties involved [I can't believe there'd be a contested Labour leadership election either, it would have to be a coronation].
To pre-empt: Brown & Major were 3 years into Parliaments where their parties enjoyed a majority.
Lab: 17
Con: 12
Tory 47
Labour 33
Incredible you try to spin this
Subtract the clean from the dodgy
Tory dodgy 35
Labour dodgy 16
I'd change the subject if I were you... Or Dave
Tory: 0
Labour: 0
The issue with it has always been whether anybody can actually implement the bastard thing - are Labour actually committing to doing it? IIRC their line was that they were going to ask the National Audit Office whether it could be salvaged.
PS forehead-slapping moment from that article - tech people will recognize this particular brand of ignorant management fuckwittery:
He also recalls the ''lightbulb’’ moment when, at a chance meeting, ''I learnt that Vocalink, a payment systems company, had already spent four years building a real-time PAYE system that worked. This meant that we had the information technology to make Universal Credit effective.’’
The Tube strikes are the forthcoming potential Labour weakness I think.
Tory 35
Labour 16
Amazingly the PB Tories were wrong in their analysis!!
Is that where Labour want the story - anti-small business?
If he's not careful they will do a Burley on him, and set up an internal inquiry to confirm that his behaviour is not racist.
Halifax MP Linda Riordan to stand down at general election
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31434198
Nevertheless, every day in the long campaign that is not dominated by the economy is a day wasted for the Conservatives. Even if people conclude that the two main parties are about as sleazy as each other, that hardly helps the Conservatives. It helps UKIP and the Greens.
I got blocked by a Guardian journalist I followed. I have no idea why.
UKIP now favourite in seven seats.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B99ciLXIQAA_NJI.png:large
What are the chances questions will be about Labour's dodgy donors?
But yes, the real beneficiaries are UKIP & the Greens - 'sugar rush Ed' just doesn't think things through.....
Hope Nigel For England made a profit on the match, he was certainly correct to make the 8-11 lay when the Windies were sub 100 for 5.
True - but I think it ignores the fact that in virtually all these cases Jews are a target. In this case the target was a Barmitzvah where there would have been children present. The anti-Semitism which is all too prevalent amongst Muslims (not all obviously) - as attested to by some brave Muslim commentators - is surely a factor and something that needs to be addressed. One Danish commentator made this very point on the Sunday.
I do think it a sad commentary that there is relatively little news coverage simply because the matter was resolved relatively quickly and only two innocent people were killed. Have we become so inured to the horror of what is going on? And the disgusting and threatening ideology behind it? We really need to join the dots and fast.
Who will not be happy
He can put it up 5p (they are already pledged to put it up 1p) and still be lowest in G7
If you want to indulge in another frenzy of jurisprudence you might consider the point that, absent agreement to the contrary or a custom of the trade, nothing except cash is legal tender, and the tradesman is entitled to decline the offer of payment by any other means, and sue you for debt.
We need a definition - I suggest any poll that has the gap between Lab/Con moving by +/- 5
or a minor party adding or losing +/- 4 is a "corker". Happy to take soundings
Otherwise "meh" !
Leaves about Bootle and Bolsover....
What we need to have - but won't get - is a hard limit on how much parties can spend, how much they can receive from any individual or entity (whether that be company, union, charity or whatever) in any one year (no more than £50K - increased every year only by inflation), full transparency of everything provided (money/loans/services in kind etc) and parties will need to learn to live within their means - just like the rest of us. Oh - and no state funding!
If parties cannot raise money within such limits then they die. Too bad. They have no God-given right to exist if they cannot persuade people to support them.
All we need is ColinW, his mum and Phil "Us Blues" Roberts back.
Good luck to the Irish, nothing lost but perhaps I should have greened out properly.
Who wanted to meet Bernard Shaw,
When asked why,
He made no reply,
But sharpened an axe and a saw.
"Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one."
Ed Miliband says Labour "will ensure executive pay is connected to performance" by putting employees on remuneration committees
Not sure how the first part is ensured by the second part, but I am sure it sounds good in the papers.
I do think it a sad commentary that there is relatively little news coverage simply because the matter was resolved relatively quickly and only two innocent people were killed. Have we become so inured to the horror of what is going on? And the disgusting and threatening ideology behind it? We really need to join the dots and fast.
--------------------------------
I don't think of myself as an anti bbc person, I quite like it and pay the fee without thinking....
But...
Yesterday, following the Denmark story where they never mentioned muslims or Islam, they covered the story of the cancelled festival in Braunschweig... And didn't mention muslims or Islam either...
No one can say that is balanced reporting, it is actually shit reporting as it leaves out a massive elemmt of both stories
There is obviously an agenda, sad.
Mr. P, the proletariat have no right to question the People's Chairman! Their impertinence has earnt them exile from the wise words and stunning rhetoric of Comrade Miliband!
http://www.kraxon.com/zodiac-eclipse-distress/